Did Zeus never teach Athena to have some tolerance with Muslims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why is there any difference between a strong male hitting a weaker male, and a strong male hitting a weaker female?

---

in some "paternalistic" cultures, including mine, males are expected to at least have some gut to fight, fight back, and knows how to fight. And even in non-paternalistic cultures, most "soldiers" are male don't they? our long tradition in earth mostly said that fighting is male duty...

of course, if you are disabled male or small childrens, that was a certain exceptions

So there's no reason beyond tradition and culture.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So there's no reason beyond tradition and culture.

~:smoking:

---

yeah, and that implies hitting women and children are far bigger crime and violence

EDIT:
and at some points of their lives, I bet every males will or have fight against each others, now, who here are male, but never ever doing brawls in highschool / univ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

in some "paternalistic" cultures, including mine, males are expected to at least have some gut to fight, fight back, and knows how to fight. And even in non-paternalistic cultures, most "soldiers" are male don't they? our long tradition in earth mostly said that fighting is male duty...

of course, if you are disabled male or small childrens, that was a certain exceptions

---

So what you're saying is that it's got nothing at all to do with nature at all, it's just about how society wants things to be...? Interesting.

EDIT: rory beat me to it.

Which would in itself be illegal in the UK as it displays both gender and age bias.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

It helps communicate the fury better. Are you just wingeing because I copied a leaf from your book with hyperbolic and sensationalist satire?

---

No it's the fury that keeps amazing me, take a look in the mirror and wonder where you really stand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

yeah, and that implies hitting women and children are far bigger crime and violence

EDIT:
and at some points of their lives, I bet every males will or have fight against each others, now, who here are male, but never ever doing brawls in highschool / univ?

---

So, you can basically swap "man" and "female" with any other random word and the point will be the same? Like "shop clerks" should always protect "library assistants", and thus violence against "library assistants" is a bigger crime. Right?

Oh, and I'm 24, male, and I've never, ever been in a fight. Nor do I believe I will ever be in one. And I'm working class. I solve my disagreements by using my words, not by acting like a barbaric idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No it's the fury that keeps amazing me, take a look in the mirror and wonder where you really stand

---

http://www.modernmom.com/media/artic...ize800x600.jpg

Excuse the vest, it's pure irony (givent he post) that some would have it be known as a "wife beater".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oh, and I'm 24, male, and I've never, ever been in a fight. Nor do I believe I will ever be in one. And I'm working class. I solve my disagreements by using my words, not by acting like a barbaric idiot.

---

hmm.....I envy you, clearly become wise as early as an well aged men when you are still in highschool are something to be very proud of... I salute you for that. Every men I know in highschool, including myself, are "barbaric idiot"according to your words, and even everyone at the compulsory conscript training camp was "barbaric idiots"...

hmm... Norway didn't have nation wide reserve conscription system... so that was still a very respectable archievements, but... quite understandable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

hmm.....I envy you, clearly become wise as early as an well aged men when you are still in highschool are something to be very proud of... I salute you for that. Every men I know in highschool, including myself, are "barbaric idiot"according to your words, and even everyone at the compulsory conscript training camp was "barbaric idiots"...

---

Only a few of my friends have been in fights, and none of them have anybody to blame but themselves for it, as they were acting like aggressive dorks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

hmm... Norway didn't have nation wide reserve conscription system... so that was still a very respectable archievements, but... quite understandable...

---

We sure do, and I've been through one 11 months and one week of military service.

No fighting there either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We sure do, and I've been through one 11 months and one week of military service.

No fighting there either.

---

Impressive feats :bow: very impressive....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Impressive feats :bow: very impressive....

---

Uhm, why? Fighting in the military is a sure way to get your behind thrown in jail, and that's not a place I'd like to be.

During my year up there I only heard of one fight, involving some drunken royal marines who were visiting for the NATO-excercise(will Philipvs rant on me for "hating on the brits" now?). Only a complete idiot would ever fight in the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, why? Fighting in the military is a sure way to get your behind thrown in jail, and that's not a place I'd like to be.

---

did they didn't teach you some close combat fighting? only firing rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

did they didn't teach you some close combat fighting? only firing rifles?

---

How is training and learning how to fight even remotely connected to an actual fight...? That's like saying I have experience as a football coach because I play football manager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How is training and learning how to fight even remotely connected to an actual fight...? That's like saying I have experience as a football coach because I play football manager.

---

after training, eating in the mess, two men left, but there was only one fried chicken:

A : hey! that's my chicken!
B :NO! that's mine!
A : hope you still remember today's training well...
B : what?
A : (punch at the stomach of B) never put your guard down!
B : (sweep kick at A)
...
... (several exchange of hits)
...
Instructor: Ok, ok, both of you! do 1000 push ups each!

well, only push ups are administered as punishments for fighting here, dunno the Norway laws are so harsh

Remember kids, violence is awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

dunno the Norway laws are so harsh

---

The non-sanctioned use of violence is illegal in all civilized countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The non-sanctioned use of violence is illegal in all civilized countries.

---

yeah... funny things happened...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Remember kids, violence is awesome.

---

in some ways...
like tom and jerry... love em when jerry sliced tom in two

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

http://www.modernmom.com/media/artic...ize800x600.jpg

Excuse the vest, it's pure irony (givent he post) that some would have it be known as a "wife beater".

---

The joke's on you, you just don't realise it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why is there any difference between a strong male hitting a weaker male, and a strong male hitting a weaker female?

---

I do generally agree people should only pick on people their own size. But even weak males and females are different scenarios, its not all physical, males are more mentally predisposed to fighting/defending themselves.

The biological and social aspects probably complement each other, rather than only one being relevant, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I do generally agree people should only pick on people their own size. But even weak males and females are different scenarios, its not all physical, males are more mentally predisposed to fighting/defending themselves.

The biological and social aspects probably complement each other, rather than only one being relevant, IMO.

---

by iron principle i only start fights with people i know i can wreck, and by extension avoid being wrecked.

but then, i haven't had a fight in a fvery long time...........

if a fight needs to be fought, then it needs to be won, otherwise why are you doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

and at some points of their lives, I bet every males will or have fight against each others, now, who here are male, but never ever doing brawls in highschool / univ?

---

Me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I do generally agree people should only pick on people their own size. But even weak males and females are different scenarios, its not all physical, males are more mentally predisposed to fighting/defending themselves.

The biological and social aspects probably complement each other, rather than only one being relevant, IMO.

---

Not really, a mother defending the nest is a bigger threat than a typical male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I do generally agree people should only pick on people their own size. But even weak males and females are different scenarios, its not all physical, males are more mentally predisposed to fighting/defending themselves.

The biological and social aspects probably complement each other, rather than only one being relevant, IMO.

---

*sigh*

Allright, let's say you have a male and female that are exactly the same when it comes to both strength AND mental status.

Is there NOW any difference between them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

*sigh*

Allright, let's say you have a male and female that are exactly the same when it comes to both strength AND mental status.

Is there NOW any difference between them?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

No.

---

So then you agree with me: it's not bad to hit women, it's bad to hit those less capable of fighting than you are yourself.

Im with Strike and Rory on this one. There is nothing glorious about violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So then you agree with me: it's not bad to hit women, it's bad to hit those less capable of fighting than you are yourself.

---

And the avarage male just happens to be stronger. Repulsion against hitting women is repulsion against treating them like something you are allowed to abuse instead of treating them like an equal. I'd say women are superior really, fine with being their slave really they are much smarter, frees the mind for more important things such as bashing skulls.

@K, what's wrong with, it's much more weak to avoid it's simplicity. When you comfort a friend he knows enough when you squeeze his shoulder, you understand, that's enough. Same with busting his nose when he pisses you of. Advanced communication made simple, or should we go in therapy instead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So then you agree with me: it's not bad to hit women, it's bad to hit those less capable of fighting than you are yourself.

---

Yes I do. Being a woman and being physically weaker tend to be pretty much synonymous. So you should never find yourself in a situation where you have to hit a woman.

I don't understand why physical violence is seen as so bad anyway.

If you think about it, if we see violence or harm against a person as being either physical or mental, then surely mental harm is more direct. Physical pain is only bad because it translated into mental anguish.

For example, my Gran, being a bit old fashioned, used to hit me with a strap or a spoon at times, but I always found that less bad than having a telling off that lasts half and hour, or having a football or whatever taken off me. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes I do. Being a woman and being physically weaker tend to be pretty much synonymous. So you should never find yourself in a situation where you have to hit a woman.

---

In short; everyone now agrees with HoreTore's opening statement. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't understand why physical violence is seen as so bad anyway.

If you think about it, if we see violence or harm against a person as being either physical or mental, then surely mental harm is more direct. Physical pain is only bad because it translated into mental anguish.

For example, my Gran, being a bit old fashioned, used to hit me with a strap or a spoon at times, but I always found that less bad than having a telling off that lasts half and hour, or having a football or whatever taken off me. :shrug:

---

Because any abusive behaviour is seen as negative. Yelling or whatever is just as unnecessary. Want to end negative behaviour? Simply reward positive behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't understand why physical violence is seen as so bad anyway.

If you think about it, if we see violence or harm against a person as being either physical or mental, then surely mental harm is more direct. Physical pain is only bad because it translated into mental anguish.

For example, my Gran, being a bit old fashioned, used to hit me with a strap or a spoon at times, but I always found that less bad than having a telling off that lasts half and hour, or having a football or whatever taken off me. :shrug:

---

Some may think that as violence.Had your granny broken your nose, finger or a limb because of your behaviour, you might think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

In short; everyone now agrees with HoreTore's opening statement. ~;)

---

Never set out to disagree, we were saying the same thing in different words, that was my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Some may think that as violence.Had your granny broken your nose, finger or a limb because of your behaviour, you might think otherwise.

---

Eh because that would be child abuse. Why pick an extreme example? I could do the same for mental abuse.

My point is why is physically harming someone seen as worse than inflicting suffering/punishment in non-phsyical ways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

In short; everyone now agrees with HoreTore's opening statement. ~;)



Because any abusive behaviour is seen as negative. Yelling or whatever is just as unnecessary. Want to end negative behaviour? Simply reward positive behaviour.

---

Can I have my reward for not murdering anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Im with Strike and Rory on this one. There is nothing glorious about violence.

---

Well that's just wrong. Violence IS glory. Ever hear any tales of glorious manners and etiquette? We may be dealing with a translation issue here but words like glory, valor, and honor incorporate violence into their code. The difference is in how it's used.

Relating back to Islam: Violence is, inherent in the system; however, the system matters less than the people in it as proven in this incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Well that's just wrong. Violence IS glory. Ever hear any tales of glorious manners and etiquette? We may be dealing with a translation issue here but words like glory, valor, and honor incorporate violence into their code. The difference is in how it's used.

Relating back to Islam: Violence is, inherent in the system; however, the system matters less than the people in it as proven in this incident.

---

Im talking about the real thing not about any stories. But it could be that in my language the word has different meaning then in yours.

Be it may that people love to hear stories about how a gentleman defended vigorously a helpless maiden in stress, from bunch of thugs. Or a soldier made a glorious final stand sacrificing himself and saving his whole platoon in the process. For some reason you hardly hear tales about when the gentleman got himself killed in a similar situation or soldier calling for her mother before drowning on his own blood filling his lungs. while dragging his legless torso in panic, just to get away from a battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Im talking about the real thing not about any stories. But it could be that in my language the word has different meaning then in yours.

Be it may that people love to hear stories about how a gentleman defended vigorously a helpless maiden in stress, from bunch of thugs. Or a soldier made a glorious final stand sacrificing himself and saving his whole platoon in the process. For some reason you hardly hear tales about when the gentleman got himself killed in a similar situation on soldier calling for her mother before drowning on his own blood filling his lungs. while dragging his legless torso in panic, just to get away from a battle.

---

Your post reminded me of a Top Gear episode where they explained sisu. :grin: I suppose that is a non-violent glory in that no one is seriously hurt but the cars sure took a beating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Im talking about the real thing not about any stories. But it could be that in my language the word has different meaning then in yours.

Be it may that people love to hear stories about how a gentleman defended vigorously a helpless maiden in stress, from bunch of thugs. Or a soldier made a glorious final stand sacrificing himself and saving his whole platoon in the process. For some reason you hardly hear tales about when the gentleman got himself killed in a similar situation on soldier calling for her mother before drowning on his own blood filling his lungs. while dragging his legless torso in panic, just to get away from a battle.

---

I've met the "hero" who tried to stand up to a mugger and got stabbed as I assisted in repairing his intestines.
I treated the "hero" who tried to placate two having an argument and required stitches when a mate of theirs smacked him round the head with a piece of wood.

Those glorifying heroic events were often never anywhere near them. It's often been said that the victors never have glorious victories as they are the ones who have had a good look at the battlefield afterwards.

Similarly Loyalty was a tremedous premium in Medieval Japan as almost no one was.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Your post reminded me of a Top Gear episode where they explained sisu. :grin: I suppose that is a non-violent glory in that no one is seriously hurt but the cars sure took a beating.

---

Yes.Sisu is bit hard concept to translate. I guess it is some odd mixture of being stubborn against odds and not minding any kind of set backs, still retaining your integrity, while the result could still be a failure. Hard thing to translate.:painting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I've met the "hero" who tried to stand up to a mugger and got stabbed as I assisted in repairing his intestines.
I treated the "hero" who tried to placate two having an argument and required stitches when a mate of theirs smacked him round the head with a piece of wood.

Those glorifying heroic events were often never anywhere near them. It's often been said that the victors never have glorious victories as they are the ones who have had a good look at the battlefield afterwards.

Similarly Loyalty was a tremedous premium in Medieval Japan as almost no one was.

~:smoking:

---

I agree completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Yes.Sisu is bit hard concept to translate. I guess it is some odd mixture of being stubborn against odds and not minding any kind of set backs, still retaining your integrity, while the result could still be a failure. Hard thing to translate.:painting:

---

Perseverance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Perseverance?

---

I was thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Perseverance?

---

Here is the wiki entry. Its quite the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Here is the wiki entry. Its quite the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisu

---

It's a nice truck too.

Yea. This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_H%C3%A4kkinen is awesome.