Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Can a man slap a woman if she hurts his feelings? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd never slap a guy personally, there's so many better ways to get revenge... like calling them up and pretending their xbox/ps4 has set on fire and serving them a nice cold drink of get the **** out of my life

    Anyways.. I really don't think it's acceptable for a woman or man to slap each other for something petty, unless it's for self defense. There are so many ways to deal with hurt feelings that don't use violence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that guys slap back so​ much harder. Tbh it probably wouldn't even be an issue if guys slapped back as lightly as girls do.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    of course I do - I love seeing people get a piece of their own medicine or having their injustice get blasted back in their own face. and apparently society does too; why do you think retributive justice exists? if she's a "big girl" now aka a grown adult, then she has the responsibility as any other individual, be they male or female; you can't let a person get away with their injustices just because they're less capable of getting away with it if our world was fuelled by common sense (e.g. if she were to be fought back) - that's treating grown women like babies, and that's not very equal treatment.
    Then you are a violent and vindictive person I guess :dontknow:

    Retributional justice is a concept from before the Enlightenment, when human life was seen as fleeting and expendable. Humans died and suffered all the time from pestilence, famine and war and so it was as nothing to exact legally sanctioned retributional justice by torturing or killing a criminal. Nowadays, the primary goals of justice are to remove dangerous people from society, deter others and rehabilitate criminals, in approximately that order.

    It's not treating grown women like babies at all, it's treating weaker people of both genders in a similar way to modern justice; that is, in such a way that the danger is quelled and they are put off trying it on again (by the show of strength).

    Similarly in gorilla societies most disagreements within the tribe are resolved by ritualised displays of strength which reaffirm the existing hierarchy and say, "Don't try anything bucko, if you do remember what I can do to you." But when two silverbacks meet, they will have a proper fight, because they are more or less equal, or at least there is no straightforward strength hierarchy.

    lol I don't care what lesson she learns, if she has the nerve to think hitting people unprovoked is okay then she'll at least learn that being punched hurts.
    You clearly revel in violence against weaker people. This is a foul, uncouth and spectacularly unmanly attitude and it certainly doesn't make you hard.

    you really are this much of a white knight pussy aren't you - I find it sexist that you view women as inferior and less capable people - how am I meant to view them as equals if I am literally supposed to treat them like they're *this* pathetic? I want to respect the person I'm against, e.g. by allowing them to play by equal standards and rules, and not to discriminate against them and their gender and refusing to let them have a fight with me
    No I am not a white knight pussy, I regularly argue here highlighting issues of female privilege.

    Women are inferior and less capable insofar as they are 99% of the time weaker than you. It's just the same with a weaker man. It's not that you somehow should be hitting the weaker man and not hitting the weaker woman. You shouldn't be hitting either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not acceptable imo...Not over "hurt feelings".

    If a woman was trying to hurt my physicals then maybe it would be necessary. As a means of self-defence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Then you are a violent and vindictive person I guess :dontknow:
    it's called having a sense of right-wronging, and pay-back; if you are wronged, don't let the other person walk free. give them a taste of what they've dealt upon you. if someone messes with you and attempts to make you a victim, you can't just allow that, and you cannot allow that to exist in society. if you want a less violent society, you can't give anybody the impression that you are a free target. just like in bullying situations - it's better to not give anybody an excuse and to stop anything before it starts.

    Retributional justice is a concept from before the Enlightenment, when human life was seen as fleeting and expendable. Humans died and suffered all the time from pestilence, famine and war and so it was as nothing to exact legally sanctioned retributional justice by torturing or killing a criminal. Nowadays, the primary goals of justice are to remove dangerous people from society, deter others and rehabilitate criminals, in approximately that order.
    oh right, so all concepts before the enlightenment are wrong? wow.
    and I'm not advocating institutionalised state torture, I'd never give that level of ability to a government (arguably nor would I for the death penalty either; life imprisonment is apparently cheaper anyway) - I'm talking about individuals using self defence to deal damage in a manner that satisfies the injustice dealt upon them.

    It's not treating grown women like babies at all, it's treating weaker people of both genders in a similar way to modern justice; that is, in such a way that the danger is quelled and they are put off trying it on again (by the show of strength).
    if they're that weak, why would they think they can fight a bigger person by engaging with them violently? what do they think, that they'll be able to walk in, **** your **** up and walk away scot-free? lol sorry that's horsecrap, that's victimisation and that's a miserable code to live your life by. don't give women a free pass; instead of encouraging anybody hitting people (e.g. like here, where you'd practically encouraging girls to hit guys when you're saying that they won't get hit back) you should simply say "don't hit anybody if you know what's best for you; don't gamble with your probable feminist pride and you'll remain on your feet without a black eye"

    Similarly in gorilla societies most disagreements within the tribe are resolved by ritualised displays of strength which reaffirm the existing hierarchy and say, "Don't try anything bucko, if you do remember what I can do to you." But when two silverbacks meet, they will have a proper fight, because they are more or less equal, or at least there is no straightforward strength hierarchy.
    ...I fail to actually see the flaw with that form of social resolution? it's better than them actually head-on fighting if it can be avoided by intimidation; if two people have guns at their belts, they're going to be far less likely to run into any violence seeing as the risk is too severe. as with silverback gorillas, I don't care, that's up to them as creatures of inferior intelligence and creatures that aren't logical in the same way human beings are (especially seeing as they could employ the same tactics as the other gorillas) - it seems as if you've flipped your opinion now, if you're trying to say that animals *aren't* intelligent.

    You clearly revel in violence against weaker people. This is a foul, uncouth and spectacularly unmanly attitude and it certainly doesn't make you hard.
    lol "unmanly", listen here - it is far more pathetic to let people control you in society. being a man is about being in control, not hitting people for no reason. if someone, if they're an adult especially, knowingly commits an act of coercion upon you, you have a full moral license to reclaim your autonomy and push them down and take back what's yours.


    No I am not a white knight pussy, I regularly argue here highlighting issues of female privilege.
    Women are inferior and less capable insofar as they are 99% of the time weaker than you. It's just the same with a weaker man. It's not that you somehow should be hitting the weaker man and not hitting the weaker woman. You shouldn't be hitting either.
    I don't care - it's not about strength, it's about the fact that we're all intelligent enough to know that hitting people unprovoked is wrong, and nobody should get special privilege when it comes to something like this. if you know that it's wrong, you can't excuse yourself by referring to your flaws - if I played a chess game against someone smarter than myself, I'm going to pull out a "less intelligent individual" card so that I'm not allowed to be check-mated. that's insane, just like what you're proposing; if I was brave enough to take on a person, I'd know that there is the risk of being embarrassed by loss, and just like in the fighting situation, throwing the first punch is your bid to suffer with the obvious risk involved, rightly so, if you cannot deal with their response.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    it's called having a sense of right-wronging, and pay-back; if you are wronged, don't let the other person walk free. give them a taste of what they've dealt upon you. if someone messes with you and attempts to make you a victim, you can't just allow that, and you cannot allow that to exist in society. if you want a less violent society, you can't give anybody the impression that you are a free target. just like in bullying situations - it's better to not give anybody an excuse and to stop anything before it starts.
    Yep, pretty sure that morality was out of date 1,979 years ago when Jesus preached that eye for an eye was wrong.

    oh right, so all concepts before the enlightenment are wrong? wow.
    Nope, this one is.

    and I'm not advocating institutionalised state torture, I'd never give that level of ability to a government (arguably nor would I for the death penalty either; life imprisonment is apparently cheaper anyway) - I'm talking about individuals using self defence to deal damage in a manner that satisfies the injustice dealt upon them.
    In that case you are taking us way back before the Enlightenment, we are back in the days before permanent human settlements. Society cannot function when people are not prevented from attacking each other. The state, or local land-owner, or whoever being granted the monopoly on violence by the law means we can live in, and reap the economic benefits of living in, societies of over 150 people.

    Self-defence is of course fine if it is proportional and not principally motivated by revenge, because the police can't be everywhere. We return to the obvious fact that the appropriate level of self-defence against someone clearly weaker than you is restraint, not hitting.

    if they're that weak, why would they think they can fight a bigger person by engaging with them violently? what do they think, that they'll be able to walk in, **** your **** up and walk away scot-free?
    Well quite, hence the reason why you engage in a display of physical dominance to show them just how wrong they were (i.e. restraint) without having to stoop to their level.

    lol sorry that's horsecrap, that's victimisation and that's a miserable code to live your life by. don't give women a free pass; instead of encouraging anybody hitting people (e.g. like here, where you'd practically encouraging girls to hit guys when you're saying that they won't get hit back) you should simply say "don't hit anybody if you know what's best for you; don't gamble with your probable feminist pride and you'll remain on your feet without a black eye"
    This is incoherent and full of baseless assertions (that I'm encouraging girls to hit guys, that girls who hit men do it out of feminist pride...) Sorry, but life's just too short here to try to figure out what's going on inside your head.

    ...I fail to actually see the flaw with that form of social resolution? it's better than them actually head-on fighting if it can be avoided by intimidation; if two people have guns at their belts, they're going to be far less likely to run into any violence seeing as the risk is too severe.
    My point is that restraining a weaker assailant is a reaffirmation of the strength hierarchy in humans too and it avoids needless violence. Violence is only an efficient way of resolving disputes where both parties have a fighting chance of overcoming each other. In any other situation, since the result is already cut-and-dried, fighting isn't going to change the social hierarchy. With the pay-off removed, all that remains is the risk of injury.

    as with silverback gorillas, I don't care, that's up to them as creatures of inferior intelligence and creatures that aren't logical in the same way human beings are (especially seeing as they could employ the same tactics as the other gorillas) - it seems as if you've flipped your opinion now, if you're trying to say that animals *aren't* intelligent.
    I'm not talking about the intelligence of animals at all. I'm starting to think you have some serious issues to sort out here as you are putting words in my mouth and going off at random tangents in order to make a display of your superior opinion. You are plainly not actually reading my posts.

    Lol at the idea that humans are logical, particularly not when they're in a fight and red mists are coming down.

    lol "unmanly", listen here - it is far more pathetic to let people control you in society. being a man is about being in control, not hitting people for no reason. if someone, if they're an adult especially, knowingly commits an act of coercion upon you, you have a full moral license to reclaim your autonomy and push them down and take back what's yours.
    Yes, and you can reassert that control by the simple expedient of restraining your weaker assailant. In so doing you don't risk injury and also you get to claim the moral high ground, improving your standing among onlookers. This is likely to have very real consequences, for example, if the police get involved. They don't care about playground arguments about who started the fight. In human society, if you hit back you assert your status as equal combatant with the other person and you can expect equal censure for the breach of social stability. If you restrain the person you assert your status as someone who has the potential to cause harm but who has the sobriety of judgement not to cause harm when it can be avoided.

    I don't care - it's not about strength, it's about the fact that we're all intelligent enough to know that hitting people unprovoked is wrong, and nobody should get special privilege when it comes to something like this. if you know that it's wrong, you can't excuse yourself by referring to your flaws - if I played a chess game against someone smarter than myself, I'm going to pull out a "less intelligent individual" card so that I'm not allowed to be check-mated. that's insane, just like what you're proposing; if I was brave enough to take on a person, I'd know that there is the risk of being embarrassed by loss, and just like in the fighting situation, throwing the first punch is your bid to suffer with the obvious risk involved, rightly so, if you cannot deal with their response.
    Well I'm glad you think hitting people unprovoked is wrong, believe me, I was starting to wonder.

    Nobody is getting special privilege if everybody you can restrain is getting restrained. If you can't restrain them and hit back, that's not a "harsher punishment", it's because you see them as an equal combatant you could not restrain, and know that if you don't engage in a proper fight as combatants you will be beaten to a pulp. Hitting back is therefore not a punishment to be compared with the punishment of restraint, it's pure self-defence against someone who you assess as a genuine threat to your person.

    Your model of the interpersonal dynamics and social significance of violent encounters (hit and you get hit back, period) is simply wrong. That is not the way fights are understood by the rest of human society. It is maybe the way fights are understood in the primary school playground.

    Summary
    In hitting back, you indicate that you are unable to restrain the assailant and so you need to defend yourself from him. You are seen to assert yourself as an equal combatant (equal enough that you couldn't restrain him).

    Similarly, in hitting you, the assailant asserted himself as an equal combatant (equal enough that he felt he could win a fight). In restraining the assailant, you demonstrate that you are in fact stronger than him and that his assessment was hot-headed and incorrect - the same outcome as if you had accepted the challenge and won the fight.

    So why do you restrain rather than engage him? Three reasons:
    1. You avoid risk of injury.
    2. You get to keep the moral high ground.
    3. You do not lower your hierarchical standing by accepting the fight, or risk losing it by engaging in the fight.

    (2) means you are likely to retain your esteem in the eyes of various factions of society such as onlookers, bouncers, or police.

    Per (3), if you had accepted the fight, you would have lowered your social standing. Although you would have prevailed, this nevertheless opens you up to further challenges. A much better way to head those off is to restrain, thus asserting/proving you're in a different league altogether, rather than accepting that you might be in the same league as your assailant (if one rung above him).

    Therefore, it is clear that restraint is a more advantageous solution when a weaker assailant attacks than engaging in a fight.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I think if a woman was being a real *****, then he can slap her. It might hurt more if it's from a man, but it's still hardly going to cause serious injury.
    Also, you do see it in films sometimes, eg. In The Godfather part 2, when Michael slaps Kay after she tells him she got an abortion without even telling him. Now that warrents a slap!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yep, pretty sure that morality was out of date 1,979 years ago when Jesus preached that eye for an eye was wrong.



    Nope, this one is.



    In that case you are taking us way back before the Enlightenment, we are back in the days before permanent human settlements. Society cannot function when people are not prevented from attacking each other. The state, or local land-owner, or whoever being granted the monopoly on violence by the law means we can live in, and reap the economic benefits of living in, societies of over 150 people.

    Self-defence is of course fine if it is proportional and not principally motivated by revenge, because the police can't be everywhere. We return to the obvious fact that the appropriate level of self-defence against someone clearly weaker than you is restraint, not hitting.



    Well quite, hence the reason why you engage in a display of physical dominance to show them just how wrong they were (i.e. restraint) without having to stoop to their level.



    This is incoherent and full of baseless assertions (that I'm encouraging girls to hit guys, that girls who hit men do it out of feminist pride...) Sorry, but life's just too short here to try to figure out what's going on inside your head.



    My point is that restraining a weaker assailant is a reaffirmation of the strength hierarchy in humans too and it avoids needless violence. Violence is only an efficient way of resolving disputes where both parties have a fighting chance of overcoming each other. In any other situation, since the result is already cut-and-dried, fighting isn't going to change the social hierarchy. With the pay-off removed, all that remains is the risk of injury.



    I'm not talking about the intelligence of animals at all. I'm starting to think you have some serious issues to sort out here as you are putting words in my mouth and going off at random tangents in order to make a display of your superior opinion. You are plainly not actually reading my posts.

    Lol at the idea that humans are logical, particularly not when they're in a fight and red mists are coming down.



    Yes, and you can reassert that control by the simple expedient of restraining your weaker assailant. In so doing you don't risk injury and also you get to claim the moral high ground, improving your standing among onlookers. This is likely to have very real consequences, for example, if the police get involved. They don't care about playground arguments about who started the fight. In human society, if you hit back you assert your status as equal combatant with the other person and you can expect equal censure for the breach of social stability. If you restrain the person you assert your status as someone who has the potential to cause harm but who has the sobriety of judgement not to cause harm when it can be avoided.



    Well I'm glad you think hitting people unprovoked is wrong, believe me, I was starting to wonder.

    Nobody is getting special privilege if everybody you can restrain is getting restrained. If you can't restrain them and hit back, that's not a "harsher punishment", it's because you see them as an equal combatant you could not restrain, and know that if you don't engage in a proper fight as combatants you will be beaten to a pulp. Hitting back is therefore not a punishment to be compared with the punishment of restraint, it's pure self-defence against someone who you assess as a genuine threat to your person.

    Your model of the interpersonal dynamics and social significance of violent encounters (hit and you get hit back, period) is simply wrong. That is not the way fights are understood by the rest of human society. It is maybe the way fights are understood in the primary school playground.

    Summary
    In hitting back, you indicate that you are unable to restrain the assailant and so you need to defend yourself from him. You are seen to assert yourself as an equal combatant (equal enough that you couldn't restrain him).

    Similarly, in hitting you, the assailant asserted himself as an equal combatant (equal enough that he felt he could win a fight). In restraining the assailant, you demonstrate that you are in fact stronger than him and that his assessment was hot-headed and incorrect - the same outcome as if you had accepted the challenge and won the fight.

    So why do you restrain rather than engage him? Three reasons:
    1. You avoid risk of injury.
    2. You get to keep the moral high ground.
    3. You do not lower your hierarchical standing by accepting the fight, or risk losing it by engaging in the fight.

    (2) means you are likely to retain your esteem in the eyes of various factions of society such as onlookers, bouncers, or police.

    Per (3), if you had accepted the fight, you would have lowered your social standing. Although you would have prevailed, this nevertheless opens you up to further challenges. A much better way to head those off is to restrain, thus asserting/proving you're in a different league altogether, rather than accepting that you might be in the same league as your assailant (if one rung above him).

    Therefore, it is clear that restraint is a more advantageous solution when a weaker assailant attacks than engaging in a fight.
    so really this boils down to:
    1) you saying that women are weak and undeserving of equal treatment, and me saying that women are responsible and worthy of equal treatment
    2) you saying that certain people can get away with hitting people, while I'm disagreeing (being restrainment is what you do to irresponsible and non-intelligent children, not adults)
    3) you maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude, both over me and over women by patronising their abilities, while I'm simply advocating rational equalising justice (the model our society uses for both criminal and civil disputes) in individual confrontations and not claiming to be a pacifist weakling
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    so really this boils down to:
    1) you saying that women are weak and undeserving of equal treatment, and me saying that women are responsible and worthy of equal treatment
    2) you saying that certain people can get away with hitting people, while I'm disagreeing (being restrainment is what you do to irresponsible and non-intelligent children, not adults)
    3) you maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude, both over me and over women by patronising their abilities, while I'm simply advocating rational equalising justice (the model our society uses for both criminal and civil disputes) in individual confrontations and not claiming to be a pacifist weakling
    No I haven't done any of that, I haven't even referred to gender in my post. Yes it is holier than thou, it's not hard to be holier than someone who thinks being hit is an open invitation to beat the other person into pulp.

    Anyone too weak to be a worthy opponent - child, old person, woman, visibly weaker man - is to be restrained. Only when restraint is impossible due to the opponent's strength should you hit back, in self-defence.

    You are mistaken about the primary function of justice in our society by the way, it is not and should not be retributional
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    No I haven't done any of that, I haven't even referred to gender in my post. Yes it is holier than thou, it's not hard to be holier than someone who thinks being hit is an open invitation to beat the other person into pulp. I can only assume that if a child hit you you would beat them into pulp too?
    lol comparing women to children isn't exactly what you're meaning to do, is it :rolleyes: yikes
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    lol comparing women to children isn't exactly what you're meaning to do, is it :rolleyes: yikes
    I certainly am, in terms of physical strength. Women are stronger than children, but still too weak to be worth hitting.

    You have not engaged with my model of fighting and social standing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I certainly am, in terms of physical strength.
    1) women are as strong as little kids? lol oh boy
    2) if the child was actively trying to come at me, sure, why not? I'm not going to deny them equal opportunity if they're that willing to have a fight with me. I wouldn't feel bad at all if they had an intention to do that same exact thing towards me now, would I? and it would be self-defence still
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why it is in so many films and sitcoms as it really isn't seen as acceptable in day to day life for a woman to slap a man. Who doesn't think that's lowly and disgustingly aggressive? I agree it's seen as worse for a man to do it, but obviously because they are likely to cause more harm, but that doesn't mean people see it as acceptable for a woman to do it and most men would not accept being slapped and nor should they. Also, it certainly wouldn't be 'funny' to witness a woman slapping a man in reality, when humour is usually when they use it in films. E.g. man says something inappropriate....WHACK

    To be honest I think this is a troll thread.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    1) women are as strong as little kids? lol oh boy
    2) if the child was actively trying to come at me, sure, why not? I'm not going to deny them equal opportunity if they're that willing to have a fight with me. I wouldn't feel bad at all if they had an intention to do that same exact thing towards me now, would I? and it would be self-defence still
    She is stronger than a little kid but still much too weak to be a worthy opponent for you.

    That is disgusting and cowardly because you know you will be able to really hurt them, despite their hubris. Restrain wherever you can. Others on the thread will doubtless agree with me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    She is stronger than a little kid but still much too weak to be a worthy opponent for you.

    That is disgusting and cowardly because you know you will be able to really hurt them, despite their hubris. Restrain wherever you can. Others on the thread will doubtless agree with me.
    if she is trying and is successfully able to harm you (quite easy for pretty much as adult, whether they're a woman or a man) then she's a valid opponent; if she punches a person, whether that hurts exactly to the same extent as if a man did it, so what? again, compare this to a weak man vs a stronger man.

    and that really means nothing coming from a person like you - I'm a coward for defending myself; only in your twisted universe would that ever make sense. I don't give a crap if I hurt a person who's immoral to the extent that they'll willing to put you into genuine pain/suffering
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    if she is trying and is successfully able to harm you (quite easy for pretty much as adult, whether they're a woman or a man) then she's a valid opponent; if she punches a person, whether that hurts exactly to the same extent as if a man did it, so what? again, compare this to a weak man vs a stronger man.

    and that really means nothing coming from a person like you - I'm a coward for defending myself; only in your twisted universe would that ever make sense.
    Yes, my twisted universe where you don't hit small children at full force if they start on you. I expect heavyweights should fight flyweights, tennis players shouldn't be seeded and Premiership teams should not wait until the third round to enter the FA Cup.

    Nobody is a valid opponent simply because they decide to take you on. They may just be a headstrong idiot in which case you can amply demonstrate your superiority by restraint. You then get to keep the moral high ground, minimise injury and head off any further challenges from those at the same level as your opponent. Please engage with this model which I have been trying to put to you for some time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yes, my twisted universe where you don't hit small children at full force if they start on you. I expect heavyweights should fight flyweights, tennis players shouldn't be seeded and Premiership teams should not wait until the third round to enter the FA Cup.

    Nobody is a valid opponent simply because they decide to take you on. They may just be a headstrong idiot in which case you can amply demonstrate your superiority by restraint. You then get to keep the moral high ground, minimise injury and head off any further challenges from those at the same level as your opponent. Please engage with this model which I have been trying to put to you for some time.
    1) only because there would be no point in non-absolutely ripped people taking part in the sport (in terms of the boxing business). that doesn't mean that the bigger fighters, in real life, are morally obligated to resist self-defence measures against weaker fighters - you're mixing up games and real life.
    2) if the moral high ground in your world is pacifism to aggressors then you're moral high ground is apologism for violence-encouragers who teach people to be victims to people who choose to hurt them in society
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    1) only because there would be no point in non-absolutely ripped people taking part in the sport (in terms of the boxing business). that doesn't mean that the bigger fighters, in real life, are morally obligated to resist self-defence measures against weaker fighters - you're mixing up games and real life.
    2) if the moral high ground in your world is pacifism to aggressors then you're moral high ground is apologism for violence-encouragers who teach people to be victims to people who choose to hurt them in society
    From (2) it is plain you have no idea of the concept of social hierarchy. Restraint is objectively a better way to shore up a dominant social position than is engaging in a fight with a weaker assailant. And for that very reason I am not going to pursue this debate any further. It will be clear to any onlookers how wrong your view is and you are not worth me engaging further.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Restraint is objectively a better way to shore up a dominant social position than is engaging in a fight with a weaker assailant.
    how
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    how
    Maybe try reading my posts above?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.