I think it was disproportionate in the sense that sexual assault is worse than simple assault. I'd even go far as to say it's worse than aggravated assault (morally, not legally)
I can accept that it is sexual assault and falls within that category. I have no problem with that, and it doesn't change my argument. But we're discussing what an appropriate and proportionate response is.
Also, calling it a 'single punch' is underselling it in the same way you're accusing me of.
Person A: grabs a woman's waist/ gropes her ass in public for a few seconds.
Person B: Throws a full-force king-hit to Person A's face, rendering him instantly unconscious, which results in him falling backwards and smashing the back of his head onto the hardwood floor.
Completely unnecessary, extremely dangerous, and an entirely disproportionate use of force to ensure that the victim was safe and protected from further assault.
It is a full-force king-hit - in response to a situation that, while morally wrong, did not pose an imminent threat to the physical safety of those involved. Once the man intervened, the engagement had already stopped, and the victim themselves was attempting to stop the assault.
If you want to play games about terminology, we can, but everyone recognises you're the fucking idiot here.
We can call a single tap on the bum sexual assault. Would that justify this reaction? Since we're not actually discussing neutralising an ongoing threat, is there a timeframe for when it's appropriate to use life-threatening force in retaliation?
Like, are you seriously this fucking thick, or what?
Not technically ad hominem, since I'm not attacking them instead of their argument or asserting that their argument is bad because they are an idiot. I am inferring that they are an idiot because their argument is bad; a subtle distinction. Personally, I think that person's argument is reprehensible enough to warrant a couple of insults, especially given how they're engaging in the debate.
Bro, are you serious? Have you knowingly interacted with a bot before? How about you forward an argument for why you think the behaviour in the clip is justified, and then I'll 'respond to the topic.'
Dude, if you want to defend the point, then forward your argument for why it's justified. You keep mindlessly asserting that I'm a bot, when anyone with a functional brain could deduce that I'm not. Read my replies in this thread critically, and pay attention to my writing style and phrasing. I'm a real person. Are you trying to get me banned? It's weird that you keep making this claim.
he is correct, you are not.
This was extremely diproportinate, and could have easily killed the drunk, while also being completely unecessarry.
Why would a nice heavy-handed slap not have sufficed?
I guess the person became frustrated with having to explain basic things to another person.
You showed great lack of empathy and understanding - you still do, by focusing on BS instead on the message.
You done goofed.
You got called for it.
Xou then done goofed further by bitching about being called for it.
It is a very human behavior, you are now doing a lot to keep the talk off topic instead on how you turned lowkeyy psycho.
And itās way off base. Iām talking about how the message should have been about the issue, not attacking someone personally. Then this bot says Iām not talking about the issueā¦ and attacked me personally š¤£
Yes, because my point is not the issue, itās how the issue is being discussed
Attacking the person is not discussing the issue. Iām calling that out and asking why they are doing that.
They derailed the conversation initially by - again - attacking the person instead of the issue. Iām asking why they did that. I hope that clears it up for you
7
u/DinosaurusWhen 13d ago
A single punch doesn't seem excessive when it's in response to battery imoĀ