vacation,mexico,altercation,drink,legsweep,revenge,owned,violent douche American girl flips the bird, throws drink in dudes face...
posted by EndAll
4 months 1 week ago • 16787 viewstags: vacation, mexico, altercation, drink, legsweep, revenge, owned, violent douche
...and watch what happens. Justified? What do you think?
Comments 
playlists with this video Controversies by Krupo
• "what's d problem?" To expect the awful by marinara
who voted for this video EndAll
- Gratefulmom
- mkone
- NetRunner
- paganif1
- ponceleon
- krazyety
- Bruti79
- yoghurt
- Fusionaut
- nibiyabi
- sirex
- sillma
- Hybrid
- Darkhand
- rottenseed
- Zonbie
- blankfist
- RedSky
- lordneptune
- moodonia
- rogueWRX
- radx
- ElessarJD
- crotchflame
- jdbates
- dbot2006
- Norsuelefantti
- Zyrxil
- kceaton1
- furrycloud
- gwiz665
- demon_ix
- Lann
- BreaksTheEarth
- smiley
- rychan
- evil_disco_man
- chilaxe
- deathcow
- bealsubub
- thehelix
- captmorgano
- Throbbin
- Ryjkyj
- zombieguerilla
- videosiftbannedme
- MaxWilder
- Payback
- ctrlaltbleach
- GenjiKilpatrick
- nomino
- Plonq
- imstellar28
- sme4r
- enoch
- albrite30
- blutruth
- jvenezia
- Fjnbk
- MikesHL13
- dotdude
- solecist
- Unaccommodated
- Xax
- Crosswords
- doogle
- Sketch
- jc0113
- lertad
- marinara
- Lendl
- Llama
- Duckman33
- rubadub
- justusshaft
- Creature
- dag
- htx123
- MrFisk
- alien_concept
- enon
- kwaran
- UsesProzac
- silvercord
who voted against this video therealblankman
- Napalm
- lucky760
- SlipperyPete
- Kevlar
- kronosposeidon
- Ornthoron
- ElJardinero
- bamdrew
- EDD
- brycewi19
- eric3579
- PostMortem
- Seric
- Issykitty
- campionidelmondo
- rasch187
- thepinky
who has this post bookmarked NetRunner
- inflatablevagina
American Girl Flips The Bird, Throws Drink In Dudes Face... Related Videos
|
Top 15 Sifters of All Time 7. ant
(35400 votes)13. mlx
(21761 votes)Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 13. ant
(151 votes)
Newest Appreciated Comments
| 
Stumble This
So did the crowd kick his ass?
i say give her acid and give him a bat
And shes right, she is a bitch.
She was being a stupid cunt.
He was actually being physically abusive.
That's fucked up. She weighs about 80 pounds. If you can't handle some stupid bitchy chick calling you an asshole... dont go out into fucking public because chances are... you ARE an asshole. I think he has proved my point.
Considering she said "Why would you do that?" and "Que Pasa Dickhead?" then walked away and he had to get in the last word and call her a "bitch" I'd say it was unjustified. If he just kept his mouth shut and walked away I think that would have been the end of it.
I mean leg sweeping any girl like that really is unjustified, I can't imagine what happened earlier between them where she would deserve that.
/obvious
1) He grabbed her ass while walking by
2) He called her something when she rejected his advances
Anybody who thinks she deserves that after watching this out-of-context clip, is a real dick. The only thing that could've qualified this behavior is if she did something like knee him in the crotch for no reason, killed his puppy, etc.
Now, with that said, he was excessive and throwing her dumb ass in the pool would have been more than adequate.
It was probably a bit much, tossing her into the pool would've been more appropriate.
So did the crowd kick his ass?
Yeah, it'd be neat to see what happened next..
He's not Mexican, btw - the YouTube vid said he was French-Moroccan.
-Edit-
(I tried carefully summing up my feelings on the matter and this is the conclusion I arrived at)
>> ^NetRunner:
It was probably a bit much, tossing her into the pool would've been more appropriate.
So did the crowd kick his ass?
Yeah, it'd be neat to see what happened next..
He's not Mexican, btw - the YouTube vid said he was French-Moroccan.
I apologize for the misconception. Machismo is a real part of Spanish culture. If he is in fact "French-Moroccan" he's got the Islamic view of women...which apparently is that they can be swept and knocked to the ground. I guess she should be grateful she wasn't beheaded...
From "the Way of the Gun".
Btw, what's with rottenseed's blatantly racist generalisations, and what's with the fucking upvotes for them?
Would love to see 60 seconds before and after this clip.
If you listen to the very beginning of the video very carefully, you can hear her say, "...[indistinct] a hotdog?" I'm thinking that whatever these guys did to her probably wasn't very nice and involved some sexual harrassment. Did you also notice the other guy's hand on the back of her neck? Her next comment is immature, but then he starts moving toward her AS SHE WALKS AWAY before she even flips him off. And then he makes some unseen gestures at her and mutters something, she says she doesn't care, he calls her a bitch, and then flicks his hand at her face. He deserved everything he got and that woman was just reacting, trying (and failing) to keep her dignity, and defending herself from those pricks.
I can't believe that anyone could think that the leg sweep was justified.
Anyway, off the soapbox. Nothing personal, EndAll.
Prick.
...but seriously, who does that to a girl? I mean, if she were a body builder, then all's fair. But she's not, she's just a bitch, so don't be a dick and stoop to her level.
Also, beer in the face is tasty while head on cement is hurty. Not justified.
so, what if it were a skiny, nerdy guy droping drinks in his face like that instead of a chick? would you applaud him being swept by the other guy?
I think its funny that everyone has side-stepped Kulpims very pertinant point here. What if it had been a guy of a physically comparable stature to the girl? I think the responses will show that we are all still really sexist and that women's equality is miles away.
The point is, is that certain women (I would imagine) of this partiular persons caliber RELY on men NOT physically responding to whatever the hell they do because they konw that the double standard exists (Im not passing judgement on it Im just saying it exists). "Men should never hit women." So some women RELY on the fact that they can do whatever they want to a man up till physical contact and get away with it. I think the comment of "dont cash a check your butt cant handle" is 100% accurate. If your moronic and childish enough to do what she did then you should be "(fe)man" enough to accept whatever comes your way. She was playing a game of escalaltion and she lost. 9 out of 10 times a guy will not react because its the wrong thing to do. She gambled and got that 1 out of 10 guys who was perfectly happy decking her.
Moral of the story is, MAN OR WOMAN, if you are 80 pounds less than someone else and if you taunt someone else you shouuld probably understand that the consequences, right or wrong, will have been invited by you and they wont be pleasant.
She does the dishes if she knows whats good for her.
/asshole
What an ass.
That's it, he's right, anyone who says that 'she had it coming' is an absolute violent dick.
I think this started with an act of violence against hot dogs. She is obviously a member of PETHD.
PETHD. Love it!
As has been stated more than enough times, we're missing half the story in this video. We can all debate the "What if's", but you can't argue an "if". What if he had started the confrontation? Yeah, well, what if he hadn't? Maybe she had made some anti-French/Moroccan crack and he told her to stick a hot dog up her butt. Maybe she didn't. That's the point. We'll never know until we get the whole story.
But that doesn't change the fact that if you say something nasty to someone, expect the repercussions. Don't confuse that with VALIDATING what he did. But you sure aren't going to douse someone with a beer and walk away. NOBODY here would have just walked away, let's be honest.
I don't know about you guys but I get really tired of this hollywood invincibility image we all seem to have in our heads. She might be totally fine and I don't mean to sound like anyone's mother but a fall like that has the possibility of causing a lot more damage than most people think. A concussion not being the least.
IMO that type of physical reaction to a drink being thrown in someone's face is never justified. And yes, I would feel the same way if it was a guy. Now, we all get pissed off and for my own sake: I hope that guy AND his friends got their fucking asses handed to them.
PS: LOcky, latin culture has a very strong standard of masculinity. Not unlike New Zealand or Australian culture. And "Mexican" isn't a race.
This video shows a complete failure of polite society on several levels. As soon as voices were raised, everybody should have been paying close attention. As soon as she threw her drink, several men should have stepped between them. As soon as he knocked her down hard, several men should have made him bleed. Even if he had pushed her into the pool, there should have instantly been a line of men forcing that asshole out of the area.
More than even seeing a woman get knocked down, what pisses me off is all then men standing about doing nothing.
I consider myself to be more of a lover than a fighter, but if I had witnessed this, one of us would be going to the hospital.
She didn't do one single thing that required striking her other than an assault to his overblown machismo.
I would have liked to seen what happened after though, her friends were just starting to get up, but I guess Footweeper's friends didn't want to post him getting bitchslapped like the pussy he is.
Doesn't matter if she or he was wrong. Males and females should be treated equally.
She provoked an attack. Don't start a fight if you can't defend yourself. = ]
oh wait I already knew that.
and lol @ me being the 55th to comment on the content of the video I myself submitted
Arguments about "REAL MEN" are cultural.
Doesn't matter if she or he was wrong. Males and females should be treated equally.
She provoked an attack. Don't start a fight if you can't defend yourself. = ]
She provoked a water/beer fight at a pool party. If you can't see the distinction between that and bashing a defenseless drunk girl's head against the pavement, I have to guess you have experience justifying violence against women.
As to what happened before, obviously it was nothing threatening, otherwise why would she be just standing there?
She didn't do one single thing that required striking her other than an assault to his overblown machismo.
I would have liked to seen what happened after though, her friends were just starting to get up, but I guess Footweeper's friends didn't want to post him getting bitchslapped like the pussy he is.
Actually RIGHT as the video ends it appears another dude from off to the left of the camera view comes and shoves/hits him. Again, it would've been neat to see what happened afterwards. I personally just hope he had the snot beaten out of him, and the girl learned a lesson.
she didnt touch him,but he fucked with her.
your dogfood in my book.
ask my brother in law about his bridge,thought he could put his hands on my little sister.
turns out he was wrong.
from this video it looks like the woman was provoked,not that i really care.
i didnt see her take a swing at this sorry, pussy of an excuse of a man.
i dont care how much a girl bruises your ego,you dont fucking do that to a girl.
grrrrr....all i saw in my head was that girls head cracking like a cantaloupe.
pussy ass little faggot is what that fucking douchebag is.
man..i want to kiss his ass after seeing this!
But a sincere "amen" in regards to the rest of your comment.
I personally just think it's funny how much machismo begets machismo. I mean come on, none of you commentators were even there to witness the full event, and yet about half of the comments are about how you'd do this or that to kick the guy's ass. This is how wars start.
It's instinctual to protect our women from those willing to hurt them. To pretend otherwise is naive.
Then there are ironic declarations that this man was a "pussy" for resorting to violence. Perhaps you're unaware, but women have pussies. So you're calling the guy a girl for being hurt by a girl's insult, then getting upset with him for treating a woman poorly.
Hmm I'm surprised so many people think the man should've been hurt until he bled/had teeth knocked out/beaten the shit out of for merely knocking a girl onto her back. Perhaps calling the police would suffice, instead of some revenge "Don't hurt our women folk, you brown-skinned mongrel!" violence.
Uh, I think you've misinterpreted the aggression towards this douchecookie.. I sincerely doubt there are any racial undertones in the comments expressing anger and wishing violence upon him. That seems more to be your own projection.
There aren't undertones in those posts since they were very overt.
EndAll, there are like three posts above us that specifically bring up the guy's ethnicity. One of them is the most popular post in the page, when judging by the upvotes. It focuses on his "Mexican" background very strongly too, saying that Mexicans have 1) small penises, and 2) are culturally programmed to be sexist. Another post went further, saying it was a "Latin" thing. Then another talked about it being an Islamic thing.
There aren't undertones in those posts since they were very overt.
Yeah, my bad, hard keeping up with all these comments. I was just editing my post to say that if you were referring to rottenseeds comment(s) specifically, then yeah, I see what you're saying. But a lot of the other ones weren't, including the non-existent one 3 posts above us you referred to. Some used the term 'machismo' but that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'Mexican machismo'
And the post I referred to is this one by rottenseed, which appears to have the most upvotes on the entire page:
"Fucking machismo. Little pricked Mexicans can get away with harming women because it's part of their culture. What happened before this altercation? I am willing to bet it's 1 of the following things:
1) He grabbed her ass while walking by
2) He called her something when she rejected his advances"
Let's see. Insults based on both physical and cultural factors. Plus prejudicial assumptions about behavior without significant evidence either way in this individual case. Great.
Anyway, yes, I agree, many posts merely wish to have severe violence brought down upon the guy, without factoring in race/culture/whatever. I guess that makes those posts a few percentage points less repulsive and barbaric. Yay.
i don't care if she punched him in the throat, you don't fucking hit a woman.
Imagine this is your girlfriend, sister, or daughter. If you still think what he did was acceptable, there is no hope left for you.
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH
... Imagine this is your girlfriend, sister, or daughter. If you still think what he did was acceptable, there is no hope left for you.
This kind of thinking shouldn't change how partial you are to this guy hitting her. This kind of thinking only perpetuates things like lynch mobs and over punishing someone. Also it feeds a stereotype that women may do no wrong, only because they are women.
I feel they both stepped over the boundaries of whats socially acceptable and it ended in 2 idiots looking stupid, for 2 different reasons. There is no right and wrong here, only two wrongs.
Furthermore those who have no tolerance or understanding for cultural differences, and the unavoidable accidents that happen because of them, are the hopeless ones among us, not the people who place logic over emotion in their thinking process.
Were they pissed? Yes. Did they retaliate in any way? No. They understood that they were in a place that played by their own rules. And they respected that.
Same thing applies here. I'm not defending this guy's behavior- it's backwards as fuck. It's just something that this chick should have gritted her teeth over, though. None of that "I'm an AMUHRICAN and THIS is how we do it" shit.
...Assuming this all sparked from the alleged confrontation with a hot dog she hints at in the first few seconds, that is.
pussy ass little faggot is what that fucking douchebag is.
*sigh* dude.. you know better.
>> ^enoch:
man..i want to kiss his ass after seeing this!
... karma.
In an ideal society we would look at each case individually. As in: If this woman had been bigger and stronger than the man, the violence committed against her would have been less wrong. But seeing as how she is smaller and appears to be weaker, it just makes us a little bit more pissed off.
But we don't usually look at every case individually. Since woman are smaller on average, we think that violence against them is more wrong (on average). And if you want to look at it from an evolution standpoint (this could be utter bull), it may actually be instinctual for men to feel the need to protect women from violence. We're pretty defenseless when we're pregnant, you know. That's basic survival and reproduction instincts we're talking about. Strong stuff. Not to mention that, historically, violent crimes involving a man and a woman are far more often committed by men.
Little girls should definitely be taught that they can't just hit boys whenever they feel like it, and I think that a healthy "we don't hit girls" construct is good for little boys to learn as long as it is coupled with a healthy "we don't let girls hit us."
>> ^imstellar28:
Sexism
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH
P.S. Berticus, your last comment is a beautiful, beautiful thing. A treasure, of sorts.
EDIT: I got the needed nerdy assistance.
A punch in the face would have hurt her less.
In fairness to EndAll this has been an interesting discussion but I do regret upvoting, by my own guidelines I tend to only downvote violence or animal cruelty and I should have downvoted this.
My earlier comment said they were both a-holes, I feel this was not correct.
Based on what we see, she seems genuinely upset and surprised by whatever he did (did he put something in her hair?) and however poorly she handled things later, she was dealing with it verbally, while he went all hands in face and invaded her personal space. Her reaction seems the kind reasonable people have to unforeseen douchebaggery, "why would you do that?"
The drink throw I think was probably a sign of her naivety and (dare I say it) innocence, she is only young and maybe it was her first time abroad without mom and dad and she still thought she was on a relatively civilized college campus, and not a drink and drug fuelled party resort. In my experience thrown drinks always result in violence. When you tangle with a stranger in a foreign country the chances are they live by different standards of behaviour. That may not be politically correct, but it doesnt have to be, its the reality of life on earth. I've had my own life experiences to understand that, this poor girl is just learning.
Alcohol is a very dangerous drug, we tend to forget that it deprives us of good judgment and allows otherwise normal people to do stupid and horrendous things. It renders people oblivious to factors that sober people would take account of. The Romans said "Alcohol is truth", as it strips away the layers of civilized behavior and pretty much leaves people with a reptile brain.
I maintain that he behaved like an a-hole, but before people take him down to the hanging tree or work out their own issues in bursts of equally contemptible violence, keep in mind we have laws for dealing with behavior like that.
Sexism
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH
It's not immoral to think violence against the defenseless is worse than violence against the strong. It's not sexist to acknowledge biological differences.
Would you like the male/female distinctions in sports removed? Are woman-only sport's team inherently sexist?
The thought experiment with a man in her place is difficult, because a man would have been treated differently. This scenario wouldn't have played out this way.
"I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong"
I agree with what you are saying, but you are wording it in a misleading way. Its not more wrong because of the inherent "weakness" of each person, it is more wrong because the same act of violence will cause more damage to a weaker person.
There are two variables here: Force and Damage; "Violence" is a description of both variables. The same leg sweep which makes a small girl bash her head on the ground probably wouldn't be much more than an annoyance for a large man. Same force, different damage.
In your head, you are probably imaging the same force against a man, which really isn't a fair comparison because you must also consider the damage inflicted. Weaker people will always require less force per unit of damage inflicted, so I can see why one would (erroneously) focus on the "strength" of the victim.
A more accurate statement would be:
"I think that most of us believe that more violence is more wrong than less violence"
Which of course we can all agree on.
A real man would never initiate violence against a woman. This is a rule that is biological in nature. For most aspects of life, I consider men and women to be equal, but not here.
Interesting you should point that out. I'm sure it doesn't necessarily extend to all dogs, let alone all animals, but I like watching my dog (an undesexed male labrador) taking just about any shit a bitch can dish out, and not falter in his advances. I've seen bitches biting hard and everything but it wasn't until she caught a more vulnerable part like an ear and he actually felt it, that he would retaliate, and even then it would only be reprimanding nip at the neck or tackling her to the ground. Or in human terms equivelent to a slap, or grabbing her arms to prevent further attack.
EDIT: I got the needed nerdy assistance.
Hey, watch those epithets against people who know HTML. After all, comic book nerds might be clueless about them, and it's conceivable that in this day and age cool people might know the basics.
>> ^imstellar28:
thepinky wrote:
"I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong"
I agree with what you are saying, but you are wording it in a misleading way. Its not more wrong because of the inherent "weakness" of each person, it is more wrong because the same act of violence will cause more damage to a weaker person.
I both love and hate how you always present your opinions as if you're explaining the fundamental facts of the universe. I don't disagree with the idea that conflict between unequal parties is inherently unfair, and that when we're talking about violent conflict, the damage can be much, much worse (see the above clip, plus the Iraq wars).
Thing is, I don't think it's correct to call it sexist to feel that male-on-female violence is more wrong. Here's what the scholarly inflatablevagina had to say about the female point of view:
>> ^inflatablevagina:
I think a good thing to think about when viewing this video is how men and women deal with conflict differently. Ask any teenage girl.. more often than not, if you piss off a girl she will attack you emotionally. Guys attack each other physically more often than not. On a certain level we don't expect anyone to get physical with us because, for the most part, we would rather ruin you from the inside out. It can be much more effective.
Much as we're taught to instinctively deny the differences between man and women these days, the truth is that men and women truly have different ways of looking at social interaction. Perhaps that's a product of culture more than biology, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both.
I think given the differences between men and women and their approach to conflict resolution, I think the general societal expectation -- sometimes phrased as "real men don't hit women" -- is merely a recognition of the fact that men and women deal with conflict differently. The idea being that when men have a conflict with a woman, they should restrain their impulse to physical violence, since women aren't generally encouraged to have fistfights over disagreements the way men are.
I don't see that as sexist, I see that as a rule of etiquette. Polite men are expected to behave differently in the company of women than they would in the company of men. I don't see anything discriminatory about that at all.
Therefore, it's "more wrong", because you're breaking the rules of social interaction, as well as breaking more fundamental rules like "don't hurt people". I'd still feel that him attacking her was extra wrong, even if she did some cool martial arts move, and knocked him on his ass and hadn't been harmed at all.
I think we should reserve the word sexism for behaviors that treat one sex as being of less value than the other, as opposed to social mores that help the differing cultures of men and women learn to live together in peace.
Saying that men hitting women is "more wrong" because women are naturally weaker seems like the more sexist explanation, even if on average it is true.
Let's judge a situation through a video clip. No one know what the fuck happened.
Some chicks sometimes, like guys, need to get smacked.
Accept it. This is gender equality to me.
And if you want to look at it from an evolution standpoint (this may be utter bull), it may actually be instinctual for men to feel the need to protect women from violence. We're pretty defenseless when we're pregnant, you know. That's basic survival and reproduction instincts we're talking about. Strong stuff.
This is exactly correct. In our hunter and gatherer years (and for those that still live that way), why do you think the men hunted while the women gathered? Hunting is dangerous. Let's say only 2 or 3 men return from the trip, if all of the women are still safe and sound in the village, repopulation can take place fairly easily because men can impregnate multiple women. If the women went hunting and only a handful came back, you'd end up with the possibility of that amount of women to get pregnant no matter how many males are around.
Assessment: Douche
I think you mean "kick" Enoch! That is a hilarious Freudian slip.
But a sincere "amen" in regards to the rest of your comment.
LOL...sighs..i suck
Two things my mom always taught me about violence - and she made it perfectly clear!!!!!!
1). NEVER hit a woman!
2). ALWAYS walk away!
There are two variables here: Force and Damage; "Violence" is a description of both variables. The same leg sweep which makes a small girl bash her head on the ground probably wouldn't be much more than an annoyance for a large man. Same force, different damage.
In your head, you are probably imaging the same force against a man, which really isn't a fair comparison because you must also consider the damage inflicted. Weaker people will always require less force per unit of damage inflicted, so I can see why one would (erroneously) focus on the "strength" of the victim.
A more accurate statement would be:
"I think that most of us believe that more violence is more wrong than less violence"
Which of course we can all agree on.
I disagree with your breakdown. The violence isn't worse against the woman just because it will hurt her more. It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself. And in the case of a leg sweep like this, assuming it is successful, it's actually going to hurt a lighter person less than a big guy. My toddler does this to himself every day as he strides around the room (although not on concrete).
It's patently offensive to bully the weak. That's what this is about.
That's why it's outrageous when a cop tasers a child. Not because it hurts the child more (it probably doesn't), but because the child is harmless to the cop.
If this guy swept a Silverback Gorilla off its feet and hurt it badly, it wouldn't bother me so much, because I know the Gorilla is going to get up and tear him limb from limb.
It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself.
What you are describing is more the difference between "cowardly" and "brave" rather than "right" and "wrong." It is certainly more cowardly to attack a defenseless person, but its also kind of "intelligent" or "strategic" isn't it?
If you consider the meaning of the words more closely, defenseless doesn't just mean "having no defense" it means "not having enough defense (for the attack at hand)." Thus, anyone who cannot successfully repel an attack is defenseless, and this it true of any fight all the way up to a high level such as MMA. Nobody has ever won a fight against someone who wasn't defenseless.
What you really mean to say is that her defense is pale in comparison to his attack, thus making him a coward for choosing such an lopsided opponent.
In terms of right and wrong, when you COBRA-KAI LEG SWEEP someone, their response determines their morality, not yours. It doesn't in any way excuse your behavior if they retaliate; nor does it condemn your behavior if they are unable or unwilling to retaliate. As such, the victim's response cannot affect the level of "wrongness" or "immorality" of your action. It makes you appear like more of a dick, sure, but thats a different word.
Were Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan defenseless in World War 2?
"Defenseless" implies not having remotely enough defenses. "Defenseless" implies the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Here's a good dictionary definition, from WordNet "defenselessness - the property of being helpless in the face of attack" and from wictionary "Lacking any form of defense".
So don't patronize me to "consider the meaning of the words more closely". You're completely wrong, ok? It doesn't mean "not having enough defense". It means a fundamental lack of defense.
And I didn't say that someone's response to a leg sweep determines the attacker's morality. Their capacity to respond has a bearing on the morality, and I stand by that. Bullying the weak and infirm is less moral than bullying the strong.
I hope that guy got what was coming to him.
>> ^rychan
Bullying the weak and infirm is less moral than bullying the strong.
Women have to deny advances all day long... Doesn't seem to me like she was being a bitch.
I hope that guy got what was coming to him.
Not all of 'em..
Some bitch assaulted some guy in Mexico with her drink.
Some macho dude knocked her feet out from under her afterwards.
She initiated the altercation and assault.
Now whether he/they was/were sexist or inappropriate (clearly used way too much force) or she was a dumb American or a victim, is not really knowable in the context of that video. For those saying the leg sweep was a lethal attack, you can't really start down that road. He could have shoved her, or slapped her, or punched her and impaled her, or cracked her skull open, or she could have drowned, or, or, or... That's the tricky part about assault. You are responsible whatever happens after you assault someone.
It's instinctual to protect our women from those willing to hurt them. To pretend otherwise is naive.
To appeal to instinct with regards to a sociological critique is to miss the point entirely. To accuse someone of naïveté while doing so is just ironic.
how many downvotes is westy up to on his... gotta check.
-62!!! MF'ing congrats.
And, yes, all gender issues aside, the violence should not have occurred.
>> ^Creature:
As a woman that bothered to go out and learn to defend herself I call bullshit on this women are inherently weak crap. Should this situation have happened? No. Why? Because violence has no place in a civilized society.
I don't think that anyone said that women are inherently weak. I was explaining to imstellar the reason that most of us feel the way we do about the "we don't hit girls" attitude. I said that women are smaller and weaker on average. Others have said that this particular woman is smaller and weaker than the man assaulting her.
And, yes, all gender issues aside, the violence should not have occurred.
>> ^Creature:
As a woman that bothered to go out and learn to defend herself I call bullshit on this women are inherently weak crap. Should this situation have happened? No. Why? Because violence has no place in a civilized society.
Take a look at the following. You've explained yourself, but what else am I supposed to infer from these?
>> ^thepinky:
Oh, imstellar, I almost agree with you, but you have to take into consideration that no matter how equal we want to be in other respects, women are biologically different than men. We are smaller and weaker on average. And I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong
>> ^rychan:
>> It's not immoral to think violence against the defenseless is worse than violence against the strong.
>> ^rychan The violence isn't worse against the woman just because it will hurt her more. It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself..
The ability to defend one's self isn't 100% tied to size and physical strength. Certain styles of martial arts actually work better for smaller than average people. The basic skills needed to to defend one's self can be learned by a majority of people. So, while I can understand how traditional roles encourage the delicate flower stereotype (I too tend to get more disgusted when I see a woman being harmed), I tend consider defenselessness to be a choice.
not allowing 100's of videosifters to mark this video as crap pretty much means we are forced to watch it at least once.
I really dont see the difference between this clip and porn.... some people get off on it, some people dont.
Just because some people vote this video up, doesnt change the fact that it is a troll video and should be moderated....
not allowing 100's of videosifters to mark this video as crap pretty much means we are forced to watch it at least once.
I really dont see the difference between this clip and porn.... some people get off on it, some people dont.
What the fuck? No one is forced to watch this video, dumbass. You click to view it by your own free will.
I had to rewatch it to see the guy actually tried to touch her before she threw the beer in his face. If you go to touch or hit someone then that is what happened.
What I don't understand is why all these people were watching this unfold behind her without acting. Those people are douchebags too.
What I don't understand is why all these people were watching this unfold behind her without acting. Those people are douchebags too.
Herd behavior.
Of course she doesn't deserve to be dropped. This whole social culture is alien to me. You be a dick to people, people start a public argument, you be a dick some more, you get a mild attack on you, you be a dick again but in a way which is entirely unacceptable. End of video.
I don't see the need for debate on this video, so I'm afraid it's a downvote from me. I don't find it entertaining or interesting. It's just an exibition of the dispicable and undesireable qualities of human nature with little or no relation to the world at large. It's clear from the information available who is in the wrong and that the outcome is undesireable. Opinion aside, moral judgement should be able to answer any discussion to be had.
Oh, women are biologically different than men. We are smaller and weaker on average. And I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong.
Oh come on tell that to all the women who fought for being accepted beyond their biological differences.
GI Jane.