Sorry feminazis and MRAs, it is ok to hit a man but not ok to hit a woman. I cannot stand this SICKENING idea that it's not ok to hit a man or a woman, us men are stronger than women and therefore it is ok to hit a man but not a woman. People who believe that it is ok for a man to hit a woman back after being hit by her is a feminazi or a misagyonist. It's not ok to be equal to women.
I will try to argue this side without bringing this to a sexist argument, an argument that is wholly unnecessary. It is a shame really, because the majority of individuals that argue for "No" are basing their opinion on the photo of an aggressor women, not on the phrase itself. Take the phrase alone, "Is it ok to attack a man?". I'd say, "Yes, it is okay to attack a man because if someone is an aggressor, then it is morally permissible to defend yourself regardless of background." In the case that "you" are the aggressor, then it isn't okay to attack a man because no aggression is warranted. But why would you ask this question unless there was some warrant to the "attack?" I can only assume that there "IS" warrant, and if there is warrant for the attack- whether it is self defence or aiding someone- then it is okay to attack anyone regardless of gender. If a women is trying to kill someone, I'd "attack" (seriously, the term "attack" is so vague I have to put it in quotations) her, same thing with a man. With equality before the law, I believe a warranted attack on anyone REGARDLESS of gender is perfectly permissible.
P.S. It has crossed my mind that user CoolDudeBroMeat most likely created this poll to spark sexist argument, seeing as his argument is entirely based on sexist opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to do the same thing. Also Blahthedebator..... I am not an idiot XD
I just want to make clear that BLAHthedebator has made a claim that he cannot back up. So what I am on the opposite side of this line? So what that suggests that my views align with that of troglodytes? To make such an audacious claim should be a criminal offense and that person is no different than the woman who expects to hit the man without any consequences because they are self-righteous in their declaration despite not having an actual argument, case, or even a small sampling of reasoning!
All too often women do attack men with the assumed security of knowing the man won't fight back in most cases. It is unacceptable to attack anyone unless in self defense or in defense of someone else. If you are a man and are being attacked by a woman you still cannot hit back....But restraint is ok.
We should't be physically attacking ANYONE. That's how we were raised - As a baby, we were slowly taught to be gentle with others, then we developed that skill as teens and finally people finish it off at adulthood. It's a simple rule. Plus, no disrespect to women or anything, but honestly I think that this "women are better" thing is going way too far. Everyone is equal, period.
Why would a woman be allowed to hit a man, but a man not allowed to hit a woman? I believe if the woman attacked first, then the man should allowed to attack back and vice versa, but the idea that "women are superior" is just stupid, and anyone who actually supports that has a mild case has autism.
Why are we attacking anybody? Was it provoked... Are you taling a Physical attack...Verbal attack...Sexual attack...Are you Attacking all men...Does this include women who identify as a male...Does it include men that identify themselves as women...Details. For serious now, I wouldn't suggest attacking anybody whether it's based on their gender or not.
The reason why we disagree is because its not right for a man to hit a women or a women to hit a man. Just because the man has a lot of respect for the women this does not mean that women should take advantage of the man how ever neither should the man take advantage of the women.
Man, woman, child. You don't hit. This was a concept we learned in kindergarten. If the argument comes from some variety of sexist standpoint, I fail to see how stating that its okay to attack a man some how gives women a leg up in the equality department. If it IS okay to attack a man, then by all equality, its okay to attack a woman, too. This is clearly not the case.
It is not okay for any one to go up to a man and start attacking him. Man or women. The only legitimate reason to attack a man is in self defense. Even in that circumstance, it is best to avoid physical conflict and get law enforcement.
"us men are stronger than women and therefore it is ok to hit a man but not a woman."
This is a very silly argument. If a women is attacking you, you have the right to defend yourself. The argument that 'she is weaker' is no excuse. It is, if anything, a pathetic excuse not to hit a women. CoolDudeBroMeat's argument is just based on a double standard.
I can pull up an argument using CoolDudeBroMeat's logic that it is not acceptable for a man to hit another man that is weaker than him.
Since it doesn't say "Is it okay to attack a man:
to defend yourself
protect another person
in a time of war"
I'll take the liberty of assuming that this attack is uninstigated. This means you're assaulting another person for no reason, which is not okay.
CoolDudeBroMeat is trying his absolute hardest to get someone to take the trollbait, and Blackkid chose YES to spite BLAHthedebator, challenging him to prove that YES voters are indeed stupid.
Unless more variables are provided, it's never okay to attack a man without valid reason.
It is never okay to hit someone whether that person be a man or woman, I am not saying I haven't hit my sisters before but that doesn't make it right. They've hit me and that is no less different then an instance in which I were to hit them. Jesus would never say, you can't strike a women, but a man, what the heck go for it.
If we were wholly unaware of things like race, gender, class, etc, and had to set moral laws for people to follow (understanding that they very well might not) one of those rules would be directed towards the use of violence. The law that seems most easily and readily agreeable to is that violence against people is only justified in self-defense. That said, since men are, in fact, people by definition, NO it is not okay to attack a man, unless it is in self-defense. There is nothing intrinsic to being male or female that determines the moral permissibility of the use of violence against either particular gender.