[News] Pizza Express customer punches a vegan

[schmunk]

To suggest that it is okay to hit women “if they want to be treated equally” is woman hating . Very silly argument indeed. She wasn’t attacking anyone so why hit her?
I believe you should strike or restrain anyone if they are coming after you and walking away isn’t an option. He should have exercised restraint. Equality indeed! Give me strength.

That's not what I wrote though, is it?

 

[The Clamp]

That's not what I wrote though, is it?

Is it not? Then you need to be clearer because that’s exactly how it came across

You wrote something like “women should be treated equally not wrapped up like sugar plum fairies”.

In this context that reads like “hit women as you would hit men, they are equal”.

That’s not what you meant?

For the record I don’t think refraining from smashing my fist into a woman’s face is necessarily “wrapping them up like a sugar plum fairy”. Wherever you got that weird simile from.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don’t apologise for anybody doing anything.

What I object to is sanctimonious tosspots like yourself being oh so fuxxing holier than thou when applying the latest super trendy PC morals to those who you believe to be below you. Sexual equality means sexual equality for all, not just those who you think are deserving of it. Violence is violence, right or wrong it is still violence. Or is that only the case when you and your snivelling left wing apologists say so? Is it OK to use violence when it suits the cause you believe in, but not in other instances?

I understand perfectly that one mans freedom fighter is someone else’s terrorist, and also that my beliefs may be different from others. But when those like yourself choose to pontificate from upon high, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge that the opinions of others are at least worthy of consideration, then do not be surprised when you confronted.

You are a fraud sir (maybe I should have spelt that beginning with a ‘c’) as you wish to appear both righteous and educated. In reality you follow the whims of what is fashionable in your eyes, what is deemed to be popular in the chattering classes. You demean those that do not agree, and chastise those who object to your attempts to appear somewhat superior.

You actually are a great reflection of modern MPs who insist that they know best, rather than acknowledge their duty to serve the electorate. People like you caused Brexit, from your ivory towers and self proclaimed superiority complexes. Sadly you, and those like you, are unable to acknowledge the responsibility you should carry as you refuse to accept that others are entitled to think differently to your own self serving mantra. UK plc could well be fuxxed BECAUSE of you and people like you.

From a confirmed remainer.

I would have thought holding the view of not hitting women is entirely old fashioned? Isn't not hitting women an historic cultural morality rather than the 'latest super trendy PC morals' as you put it. Think your whole argument collapses after the first sentence.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not hitting women is the “latest , super trendy PC moral”?

You mad cvnt.

I couldn't work that one out either. Here's me thinking I was being positively Victorian with my outlook of not hitting women, but it's supposedly super trendy PC lefty wetness that prevents me from giving the fairer sex a good whack every now and again.

 

[Palacefinder General]

This.

Some strange woman-hating rhetoric on this thread. If their daughters came home with a bloodied nose from a big bald man I very much doubt they would go “oh well, you can’t be that surprised”.

Do you think the parent’s reaction would have been different if she’d come home with a bloodied nose and told them it was a big man with a full head of hair who’d struck her?

Dad: “Who did that to you, Clarenza?”
Clarenza: “Oh it was nothing, dad, just some massive guy with a blond quiff.”
Dad: “Thank god it wasn’t some bald, menacing thug. Take a seat, I’ve got some non battery farmed asparagus spears coming out of the oven.”
Clarenza: “Thanks, dad.”

Scene ends with a full vegan family meal and them all sitting down to watch The Apprentice together.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Not hitting women is the “latest , super trendy PC moral”?

You mad cvnt.

I was judging the poster to be ‘ a super trendy PC moral supporting’ character. Bit like yourself, two faced sanctimonious cvnt.

Be interesting to see if you/we/I get banned for using cvnt.

 

[The Clamp]

I couldn't work that one out either. Here's me thinking I was being positively Victorian with my outlook of not hitting women, but it's supposedly super trendy PC lefty wetness that prevents me from giving the fairer sex a good whack every now and again.

Honest to goodness. These bootless feckwits are given reproductive organs and a vote? No wonder we are knee deep in the shit!

 

[The Clamp]

I was judging the poster to be ‘ a super trendy PC moral supporting’ character. Bit like yourself, two faced sanctimonious cvnt.

Be interesting to see if you/we/I get banned for using cvnt.

Wind your neck in.


Yes, I imagine we will get banned.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don’t apologise for anybody doing anything.

What I object to is sanctimonious tosspots like yourself being oh so fuxxing holier than thou when applying the latest super trendy PC morals to those who you believe to be below you. Sexual equality means sexual equality for all, not just those who you think are deserving of it. Violence is violence, right or wrong it is still violence. Or is that only the case when you and your snivelling left wing apologists say so? Is it OK to use violence when it suits the cause you believe in, but not in other instances?

I understand perfectly that one mans freedom fighter is someone else’s terrorist, and also that my beliefs may be different from others. But when those like yourself choose to pontificate from upon high, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge that the opinions of others are at least worthy of consideration, then do not be surprised when you confronted.

You are a fraud sir (maybe I should have spelt that beginning with a ‘c’) as you wish to appear both righteous and educated. In reality you follow the whims of what is fashionable in your eyes, what is deemed to be popular in the chattering classes. You demean those that do not agree, and chastise those who object to your attempts to appear somewhat superior.

You actually are a great reflection of modern MPs who insist that they know best, rather than acknowledge their duty to serve the electorate. People like you caused Brexit, from your ivory towers and self proclaimed superiority complexes. Sadly you, and those like you, are unable to acknowledge the responsibility you should carry as you refuse to accept that others are entitled to think differently to your own self serving mantra. UK plc could well be fuxxed BECAUSE of you and people like you.

From a confirmed remainer.

How did you get from a vegan demo to blaming me for the U.K. being ****ed?

 

[schmunk]

Equality isn't to say we are all the same, just that we are treated with the same respect and opportunity without discrimination.

Agreed.

To extend that to somehow believe that equality means we are all the same and you might also punch a women because they are equal to men, that is some misogynistic thinking right there.

You are wrong here, and also seemingly misunderstanding my post - it's misogyenistic to say that we must treat men and women differently because of their gender - that women are incapable of the same interactions as a man; weak; gentle; whatever.

It's this kind of thinking that drives the serious under-reporting of female-on-male domestic violence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47252756

On the same token, I often kiss (and get kissed) by female friends as a greeting, but funnily enough, not by any (well maybe a couple of them...) of my male friends - not because I don't treat them equally, but because we accept our differences.

Your point is somewhat tangential, but if your female friend stuck out their hand for a handshake, would you do that, or would you insist on a kiss? [N.B. I'm not implying you're a sex pest, because I 100% expect you to answer in the former...]

You've got some screwed up thinking if you're going around thinking it's okay to punch a women because they're equal.

I don't think it's OK to punch anyone without very significant provocation (e.g. genuine fear for safety, and even then it wouldn't be my prefered response) but if a woman came at you with a knife would you simply hold your hands up and let her at you?

 

[The Clamp]

How did you get from a vegan demo to blaming me for the U.K. being ****ed?

He’s in Australia though. The men are very tightly wound out there because they are made to wear short trousers into their late teens. Coupled with the fact that Australia is about 40/50 years behind the rest of the developed world.

 

[A1X]

 

[schmunk]

Is it not? Then you need to be clearer because that’s exactly how it came across

You wrote something like “women should be treated equally not wrapped up like sugar plum fairies”.

In this context that reads like “hit women as you would hit men, they are equal”.

That’s not what you meant?

For the record I don’t think refraining from smashing my fist into a woman’s face is necessarily “wrapping them up like a sugar plum fairy”. Wherever you got that weird simile from.

If the protestor had been a man, you'd have been OK with the big chap hitting him? But you're angry in this case because the victim was a woman? That's sexist.

 

[The Clamp]

Agreed.



You are wrong here, and also seemingly misunderstanding my post - it's misogyenistic to say that we must treat men and women differently because of their gender - that women are incapable of the same interactions as a man; weak; gentle; whatever.

It's this kind of thinking that drives the serious under-reporting of female-on-male domestic violence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47252756



Your point is somewhat tangential, but if your female friend stuck out their hand for a handshake, would you do that, or would you insist on a kiss? [N.B. I'm not implying you're a sex pest, because I 100% expect you to answer in the former...]



I don't think it's OK to punch anyone without very significant provocation (e.g. genuine fear for safety, and even then it wouldn't be my prefered response) but if a woman came at you with a knife would you simply hold your hands up and let her at you?

I don’t know how you people are getting it so wrong. A crazed lady running at you with a knife and a young lady protesting in a pizza express are two very different situations.
As an aside, I have dealt with both situations (not in a pizza express) and I’m happy to say nobody got punched (or stabbed). So it can be done.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Agreed.

You are wrong here, and also seemingly misunderstanding my post - it's misogyenistic to say that we must treat men and women differently because of their gender - that women are incapable of the same interactions as a man; weak; gentle; whatever.

It's this kind of thinking that drives the serious under-reporting of female-on-male domestic violence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47252756

Your point is somewhat tangential, but if your female friend stuck out their hand for a handshake, would you do that, or would you insist on a kiss? [N.B. I'm not implying you're a sex pest, because I 100% expect you to answer in the former...]

I don't think it's OK to punch anyone without very significant provocation (e.g. genuine fear for safety, and even then it wouldn't be my prefered response) but if a woman came at you with a knife would you simply hold your hands up and let her at you?

Perhaps I misread your previous post somewhat then...

With regard to you're last sentence, I agree, but significant provocation from a women, I've yet to experience it, ever. From men, plenty of times, numerous occasions to varying degrees of threat and hostility. To date, not from a women. Would I defend myself, of course. Does this mean I consider women to be weak, gentle etc. no, but I consider them to be less prone to violence and aggression, therefore instinctively less of a threat.

Had the bloke hit a male in the video, yeah I'd have been equally condemning of the violent reaction, but as above, the girl would be even less of a perceived threat than a male, so the violent reaction is even more shocking in that regard.

 

[The Clamp]

If the protestor had been a man, you'd have been OK with the big chap hitting him? But you're angry in this case because the victim was a woman? That's sexist.

Hmmm. No. In this situation, nobody needed to hit or be hit. Total overreaction.

 

[darkwolf666]

This.

Some strange woman-hating rhetoric on this thread. If their daughters came home with a bloodied nose from a big bald man I very much doubt they would go “oh well, you can’t be that surprised”.

I don't know, if my daughter came home and told me she was a Vegan I would be thinking "where did I go wrong, was it all those salads when she was a kid"...

 

[The Clamp]

I don't know, if my daughter came home and told me she was a Vegan I would be thinking "where did I go wrong, was it all those salads when she was a kid"...

Which is of course the wrong reaction. You need to punch her in the face.

 

[schmunk]

Hmmm. No. In this situation, nobody needed to hit or be hit. Total overreaction.

Agreed, so why all the specific fuss (from you and several others) about the victim being a woman?

 

[The Clamp]

Agreed, so why all the specific fuss (from you and several others) about the victim being a woman?

No particular fuss about her being a woman, although like it or not, it is less acceptable and far more shocking to see a man hit a woman than hitting another man. To deny that is all a bit silly really. It was more people saying equality should include hitting both men and women that I found rather distasteful.