No, you can hit a man and you’ll get hit back just as hard. You can hit a woman, and she’ll be knocked the fuck out.
Just because you don’t punch children in the face doesn’t mean its OK to punch men in the face. It just means one can defend themselves better and that you like to pick on those you see as weaker.
Original comment: hitting a man is as bad as hitting a woman.
Latest comment: proof by contradiction that hitting a woman is not worse than hitting a man if you’re not justifying hitting a man.
To me, “hitting a man is as bad as hitting a woman” and “hitting a woman is not worse than hitting a man” are equal statements. How is that moving the goalpost?
“Hitting a woman is worse than hitting a man” is just sexism.
By saying that it’s worse to hit a woman, you are being sexist. You also implied that violence against men, which disproportionately outnumbers violence against women, doesn’t matter. Saying that it’s bad doesn’t matter when you are creating a sexist double standard.
You attack a man, that’s bad. You attack a woman, that’s bad.
Women are routinely singled out for violence because they tend to be smaller and less intimidating.
The Groypers targeted her because she was a woman. JD Vance and his ilk don’t consider professional women legitimate. And quite a few of her male colleagues share that view.
So while picking a fight with a man invokes the angry of all his friends, Groypers feel confident they can single out a woman because her fellows have already left her isolated.
Why would it make it worse.
You attack a man, that’s bad. You attack a woman, that’s bad.
Baing a man doesn’t justify you being hit.
Show me where I said being a man justifies you being hit?
You won’t, I didn’t say that. I said it’s wrong. I said it’s worse for a man to hit a women. Take your bullshit somewhere else.
Well, if hitting a woman is worse than hitting a man, then it must mean that hitting a man is not as bad.
So I can just hit men and say “at least I didn’t hit a woman”. That’s justifying hitting a man for just being a man.
No, you can hit a man and you’ll get hit back just as hard. You can hit a woman, and she’ll be knocked the fuck out.
Just because you don’t punch children in the face doesn’t mean its OK to punch men in the face. It just means one can defend themselves better and that you like to pick on those you see as weaker.
Why don’t you mount those goalposts on a Bugatti, it’ll make it easier for you. Until then, you do you.
Original comment: hitting a man is as bad as hitting a woman.
Latest comment: proof by contradiction that hitting a woman is not worse than hitting a man if you’re not justifying hitting a man.
To me, “hitting a man is as bad as hitting a woman” and “hitting a woman is not worse than hitting a man” are equal statements. How is that moving the goalpost?
“Hitting a woman is worse than hitting a man” is just sexism.
By saying that it’s worse to hit a woman, you are being sexist. You also implied that violence against men, which disproportionately outnumbers violence against women, doesn’t matter. Saying that it’s bad doesn’t matter when you are creating a sexist double standard.
Where did I say it didn’t matter? You need some help with reading comprehension. Go read my comment again.
Women are routinely singled out for violence because they tend to be smaller and less intimidating.
The Groypers targeted her because she was a woman. JD Vance and his ilk don’t consider professional women legitimate. And quite a few of her male colleagues share that view.
So while picking a fight with a man invokes the angry of all his friends, Groypers feel confident they can single out a woman because her fellows have already left her isolated.
That’s what’s fucked about this situation.