C
ChiefsFan
Guest
It's harsh to say Sivivatu's a wife beater, afterall, he slapped her and she threw a chair at him. Which do you think would hurt more..?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
M
Maccaweeny
Guest
Skinheads have a different ideological grounding wherever you go, over here as in Russia they're mainly bigoted nationalist groups that are affiliated with Australia First or some small 'fascist' parties.
It's funny thinking that fascist ideology, before it was warped by Nazism, had little to do with racism. It was essentially hero worship, founded on the idea that through strength, willingness to serve, obedience, authority and self-denial an elite would be formed to lead the people in a totalitarian but meritocratic government. It taught that man had been made soft by market-capitalism and only through embracing basic urges, like lust and violence could we be as we were intended to be.
Now you only have confused dickheads who shave their heads and put a good luck symbol on their arm to give them a false sense of security/importance.
It's funny thinking that fascist ideology, before it was warped by Nazism, had little to do with racism. It was essentially hero worship, founded on the idea that through strength, willingness to serve, obedience, authority and self-denial an elite would be formed to lead the people in a totalitarian but meritocratic government. It taught that man had been made soft by market-capitalism and only through embracing basic urges, like lust and violence could we be as we were intended to be.
Now you only have confused dickheads who shave their heads and put a good luck symbol on their arm to give them a false sense of security/importance.
J
jawmalawm24
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChiefsFan @ Jan 18 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Back to the topic at hand does anyone know why these 3 All Blacks were targeted were they the only ones there or was it just a case of wrong place at the wrong time?
Sivivatu's a Rugby player he should of been able to step the chair lol.
Back to the topic at hand does anyone know why these 3 All Blacks were targeted were they the only ones there or was it just a case of wrong place at the wrong time?
H
Hall
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChiefsFan @ Jan 18 2009, 02:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Chair throwing or no chair throwing, you DO NOT strike a woman, ever.
Chair throwing or no chair throwing, you DO NOT strike a woman, ever.
M
Maccaweeny
Guest
I think that notion is beginning to fade man, if a woman is violent and purposely goes out to hurt a guy, they can't expect to be sacrosanct on the basis of having a pair of ***s. So long as you use reasonable and proportionate force then I see no problem.
H
Hall
Guest
I'd call reasonable force restraining them somehow. Not giving them a slap.
F
Fred187
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 18 2009, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Chair throwing or no chair throwing, you DO NOT strike a woman, ever.
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, I was about to say - it's pretty much the cardinal rule of manhood.
Chair throwing or no chair throwing, you DO NOT strike a woman, ever.
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, I was about to say - it's pretty much the cardinal rule of manhood.
M
Maccaweeny
Guest
Come on white knights, so those who go to battered mens shelters (yes that might sound funny, they actually exist though) due to being perpetually assaulted by their wives should not strike back because 'it's the cardinal rule of manhood'?
The fact of the matter is that violent women exist in this world, only last week an Aboriginal female beat the **** out of another woman on a bus, ripping her clothes off and stealing all her possessions, because she didn't like the way the woman looked at her. My sister has been threatened by a girl holding a used hypodermic needle, yet in either situation are we to be restricted to passive force (i.e restraint), merely on the basis that such human beings, despite having absolutely no regard for the safety and well-being of others, possess female sex organs?
The fact of the matter is that violent women exist in this world, only last week an Aboriginal female beat the **** out of another woman on a bus, ripping her clothes off and stealing all her possessions, because she didn't like the way the woman looked at her. My sister has been threatened by a girl holding a used hypodermic needle, yet in either situation are we to be restricted to passive force (i.e restraint), merely on the basis that such human beings, despite having absolutely no regard for the safety and well-being of others, possess female sex organs?
H
Hall
Guest
Both examples you gave were woman on woman violence.
Obviously when your life is in danger things change but as far as a domestic dispute goes, it shouldn't need to happen unless she's brandishing a knife at you.
Obviously when your life is in danger things change but as far as a domestic dispute goes, it shouldn't need to happen unless she's brandishing a knife at you.
M
Maccaweeny
Guest
I gave three examples, the first relating specifically to domestic disputes in which men are the victims, so are you saying that these men should just hack it unless their abusive partner picks up a knife?
Whether it's 'woman on woman' violence is irrelevant, I was begging the question; if we were present, would we be limited to passive force? As far as i'm concerned, when someone assaults another person they are no longer inviolable. If this 'cardinal rule of manhood' is based on the notion that women are weaker than men, and thus should not be hit, how do you account for abusive women who hold power (both psychological and physical) over their spouses? Or women who through the use of weapons (such as syringes) are no longer the weaker party?
People should be equal under the law, regardless of sex, I see no reason why all women should fall under a hugely generalised halo of venerability merely because of some antiquated abrahamic notion.
Whether it's 'woman on woman' violence is irrelevant, I was begging the question; if we were present, would we be limited to passive force? As far as i'm concerned, when someone assaults another person they are no longer inviolable. If this 'cardinal rule of manhood' is based on the notion that women are weaker than men, and thus should not be hit, how do you account for abusive women who hold power (both psychological and physical) over their spouses? Or women who through the use of weapons (such as syringes) are no longer the weaker party?
People should be equal under the law, regardless of sex, I see no reason why all women should fall under a hugely generalised halo of venerability merely because of some antiquated abrahamic notion.
H
Hall
Guest
Abrahamic? In the Abrahamic cultures women are traditionally second class citizens who could be stoned in the streets for being sugestively dressed. So don't bring that into it.
As I said, if a syringe is being wielded things would change. When your life is at risk you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions.
If I see people fighting on the street I break them up, I don't wade in and start throwing punches of my own regardless of gender. I don't see where you're coming from with that argument. What I will say is that if anyone is wielding a weapon I'd stay well away and phone the police rather than get involved myself.
There are exceptions that prove the rule but yes, in general, women are weaker. Being passive doesn't mean being downtrodden, there are other ways of stopping someone bullying you without being violent. As I've said, restraint can work.
I guess I've just been brought up this way by both my parents and my grandparents. I was always taught that its wrong to hit females. It seems fair enough to me, it is something I have thought about and its a virtuous enough trait to have.
As I said, if a syringe is being wielded things would change. When your life is at risk you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions.
If I see people fighting on the street I break them up, I don't wade in and start throwing punches of my own regardless of gender. I don't see where you're coming from with that argument. What I will say is that if anyone is wielding a weapon I'd stay well away and phone the police rather than get involved myself.
There are exceptions that prove the rule but yes, in general, women are weaker. Being passive doesn't mean being downtrodden, there are other ways of stopping someone bullying you without being violent. As I've said, restraint can work.
I guess I've just been brought up this way by both my parents and my grandparents. I was always taught that its wrong to hit females. It seems fair enough to me, it is something I have thought about and its a virtuous enough trait to have.
J
jawmalawm24
Guest
I'm over that you should never hit a women crap especially having been in 2 abusive relationships. The 1st it was easy to just take punches and stuff but I didn't really like her so it was easy to walk away but the 2nd was a shocker because my ex came at me with a knife trying to stab me but she only managed to slice me so I didn't get life threatening injuries.
This has nothing to do with the topic so anyway is there anymore news on Mackintosh, Cowan and Donald?. I haven't heard much but I so wish they got Donald because I don't really like him and someone else should be in there to fill the boots of Carter.
This has nothing to do with the topic so anyway is there anymore news on Mackintosh, Cowan and Donald?. I haven't heard much but I so wish they got Donald because I don't really like him and someone else should be in there to fill the boots of Carter.
H
Hall
Guest
I haven't heard anything, but then I'm not in New Zealand.
J
jawmalawm24
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 19 2009, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Be thankful because our economy sux major ballbags and the only things we've got going for us are Rugby, Sheep and clean green yay.
H
Hall
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jawmalawm24 @ Jan 18 2009, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
[/b][/quote]
Hey, there's only four countries outside of the UK I'd want to live in and New Zealand is one of them.
Be thankful because our economy sux major ballbags and the only things we've got going for us are Rugby, Sheep and clean green yay.
[/b][/quote]
Hey, there's only four countries outside of the UK I'd want to live in and New Zealand is one of them.
C
ChiefsFan
Guest
Why would anyone want to live in the UK? 
M
Maccaweeny
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 19 2009, 03:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
My point exactly, by i) being relegated to domestic servitude and ii) being portrayed in scripture as the 'purer sex' (i.e idolisation of the virgin Mary and the sanctity of married women) the idea was born that women are weaker and must be protected by men. A few thousand years down the track things are not so simple.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 19 2009, 03:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
That's alright, if you're willing to follow what your parents and grandparents taught you I'm not here to change your mind. I just think that saying you should 'never strike a woman' is not taking into account the many situations in which women may be the dominant force in an abusive relationship.
My point exactly, by i) being relegated to domestic servitude and ii) being portrayed in scripture as the 'purer sex' (i.e idolisation of the virgin Mary and the sanctity of married women) the idea was born that women are weaker and must be protected by men. A few thousand years down the track things are not so simple.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 19 2009, 03:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
That's alright, if you're willing to follow what your parents and grandparents taught you I'm not here to change your mind. I just think that saying you should 'never strike a woman' is not taking into account the many situations in which women may be the dominant force in an abusive relationship.
H
hurricane13
Guest
apparently it was stephen mcdonald who was taking the most beating so macintosh sheilded him like a big bear!!
H
Hall
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Maccaweeny @ Jan 19 2009, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
My point exactly, by i) being relegated to domestic servitude and ii) being portrayed in scripture as the 'purer sex' (i.e idolisation of the virgin Mary and the sanctity of married women) the idea was born that women are weaker and must be protected by men. A few thousand years down the track things are not so simple.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 19 2009, 03:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
That's alright, if you're willing to follow what your parents and grandparents taught you I'm not here to change your mind. I just think that saying you should 'never strike a woman' is not taking into account the many situations in which women may be the dominant force in an abusive relationship.
[/b][/quote]
I don't follow everything my parents and grandparents taught me. I thought about it all and decide which were valid. That was.
I shunned some of the other stuff, like religion.
My point exactly, by i) being relegated to domestic servitude and ii) being portrayed in scripture as the 'purer sex' (i.e idolisation of the virgin Mary and the sanctity of married women) the idea was born that women are weaker and must be protected by men. A few thousand years down the track things are not so simple.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Jan 19 2009, 03:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
That's alright, if you're willing to follow what your parents and grandparents taught you I'm not here to change your mind. I just think that saying you should 'never strike a woman' is not taking into account the many situations in which women may be the dominant force in an abusive relationship.
[/b][/quote]
I don't follow everything my parents and grandparents taught me. I thought about it all and decide which were valid. That was.
I shunned some of the other stuff, like religion.
K
K-Pac
Guest
man you guys are speaking some ****.
