Woman hits man on bus - watch video and decide....

[Badran]

Sympathy surely no, but they wouldnt go to the troubles of following her and cornering her, etc unless their egos felt offended enough.

Man, they could decide to target her for the exact opposite, just for being perceived as an appropriate and easy prey. The could also decide to target her if they're insulted by her "insolence in pretending not to like it and making a scene".

These are scum and thinking of them in terms of simply not angering them would be a grave error. The issue is no where near as simple as not angering them. She decided to assert dominance and i say kudos to her for doing it, and, at least apparently, for succeeding in doing so.

Had there not been witnesses her best chance would have been to run anyways, had it been a bus of just rapists she was just ***.

That i agree with.

And for the record, as you could ve imagined by now, no, when I said fear I wasnt belittling the emotion at all.

Its a powerful emotion, rarely leading us to any reasonable action.

I don't think you're belittling her emotions, i just don't think you're considering them in the proper context. As in, i think you're looking at them simplistically, but not due to lack of care.

 

[Aquitaine]

Bottom line: don't grope someone and you won't get hit. :yes:

 

[DallasApple]

It's being used as a teaser / promotional video for a film about rape and revenge. That doesn't mean it isn't genuine though. I think it's an authentic vid being used for promotional purposes. I wasn't able to determine the origin of it when I looked it up. The people in the video are not the actors in the film, which is a typical glamorous Bollywood type thing with gorgeous Indian actresses and actors, outfits and settings.

I clicked on some to the other videos that are I guess scenes in the movie? They were obviously not real and the people were actors so I was starting to wonder.So they had real footage to use as the basis for making fiction ?

 

[Me Myself]

Man, they could decide to target her for the exact opposite, just for being perceived as an appropriate and easy prey. The could also decide to target her if they're insulted by her "insolence in pretending not to like it and making a scene".

These are scum and thinking of them in terms of simply not angering them would be a grave error. The issue is no where near as simple as not angering. She decided to assert dominance and i say kudos to her for doing it, and, at least apparently, succeeding in doing so.



That i agree with.



I don't think you're belittling her emptions, i just don't think you're considering them in the proper context. As in, i think you're looking at them simplistically, but no due to lack of care.

Its just that her emotions dont really have anything to do about whether her ACTIONS where justified or not.

I am not looking at them simplistically. I know how negative emotions entangle.

She could guard her space and waked out, but she didnt. This is understandable, but not reasonable.


If you were on a bus and you saw a man hitting a woman with an umbrella yelling she sexually assaulted him and the woman was trying to tell him to chill that she didnt do it and the man keeps going at her hitting with the umbrella while saying yes you did! You €&&)€(;€!

What would you do?

 

[Badran]

Its just that her emotions dont really have anything to do about whether her ACTIONS where justified or not.

Ah, i see. We are in severe disagreement then. In my view, an action can not be judged without proper consideration for it's motivations and context surrounding it.

If you meant to say that her emotions do not necessarily justify her actions, i would agree. It's not necessary that her emotions justify the situation. But in this case, i do think that her emotions which are based on real victimization and danger occurring in fact justify her actions.

I am not looking at them simplistically. I know how negative emotions entangle.

She could guard her space and waked out, but she didnt. This is understandable, but not reasonable.

I do think you're looking at them simplistically, by describing them as simply fear when i personally think that there's most likely much more to it than that, as i previously described.

If you were on a bus and you saw a man hitting a woman with an umbrella yelling she sexually assaulted him and the woman was trying to tell him to chill that she didnt do it and the man keeps going at her hitting with the umbrella while saying yes you did! You €&&)€(;€!

What would you do?

Of course, your example is conveniently assuming that i didn't see the sexual assault. In addition, the example is missing how sexual harassment from men towards women is rampant in many cultures, and how women are endangered by it, as well as rape and outright being killed, which are things much less found the other way around, which would (whether i like it or not) affect my judgement in more than one aspect.

So, while my answer would be that i'd be angered by the scene of a man hitting a woman, and most likely stop him a bit aggressively and ask him to calm down until we figure things out, i think your example does little to actually address the situation. Feel free to elaborate though if you think i'm missing your point.

 

[Badran]

If you were on a bus and you saw a man hitting a woman with an umbrella yelling she sexually assaulted him and the woman was trying to tell him to chill that she didnt do it and the man keeps going at her hitting with the umbrella while saying yes you did! You €&&)€(;€!

What would you do?

Of course, your example is conveniently assuming that i didn't see the sexual assault. In addition, the example is missing how sexual harassment from men towards women is rampant in many cultures, and how women are endangered by it, as well as rape and outright being killed, which are things much less found the other way around, which would (whether i like it or not) affect my judgement in more than one aspect.

So, while my answer would be that i'd be angered by the scene of a man hitting a woman, and most likely stop him a bit aggressively and ask him to calm down until we figure things out, i think your example does little to actually address the situation. Feel free to elaborate though if you think i'm missing your point.

Your example is also missing the proper context of what was being said (which is being assumed to have went on in a certain way), which we can't understand in the video.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I clicked on some to the other videos that are I guess scenes in the movie? They were obviously not real and the people were actors so I was starting to wonder.So they had real footage to use as the basis for making fiction ?

It struck me as one of those staged "viral videos" that filmmakers like to use to promote their projects. I think it's harder to tell when people from other countries are acting, but there's a stiltedness in their actions which indicates artificiality.

 

[Me Myself]

Ah, i see. We are in severe disagreement then. In my view, an action can not be judged without proper consideration for it's motivations and context surrounding it.

If you meant to say that her emotions do not necessarily justify her actions, i would agree. It's not necessary that her emotions justify the situation. But in this case, i do think that her emotions which are based on real victimization and danger occurring do in fact justify her actions.



I do think you're looking at them simplistically, by describing them as simply fear when i personally think that there's most likely much more to it than that, as i previously described.



Of course, your example is conveniently assuming that i didn't see the sexual assault. In addition, the example is missing how sexual harassment from men towards women is rampant in many cultures, and how women are endangered by it, as well as rape and outright being killed, which are things much less found the other way around, which would (whether i like it or not) affect my judgement in more than one aspect.

So, while my answer would be that i'd be angered by the scene of a man hitting a woman, and most likely stop him a bit aggressively and ask him to calm down until we figure things out, i think your example does little to actually address the situation. Feel free to elaborate though if you think i'm missing your point.

Motivations come in place, sure, but emotions do not. I can feel any way about whatever I want.

What I do must be based in accordance with motivations, yes, but I dont think the actions one does when overpowered by such emotions can generally be called motivations. You just act. I am sure she just acted. I cant know, but I assume she was too overpowered by emotions to think coldly on what she was doing.

If we are not thinking what we are doing it is no surprise what we are doing is not reasonable.

It is conviniently assuming you didnt see it because from almost all angles it owuld be very hard to see it, and also it would be hard to see it from proper angle if you werent paying attention as it was a quiet thing. So the definitely more probable scenario is that you didnt see a thing.

If I see someone attacking another someone who is helpless, it is my moral dutty to step up. She was attacking e man who was, in that moment, helpless.

Is it a big deal? Nah. A pair of bruises is nothing in comparison to the psychological damage he didnt care to put on her. It was still wrong.

The action is wrong.

Just like I can understand spa father killing the guy who just raped his daughter even if he is under the possibility of calling the police. It does not mean he did okay, and I am certainly not under the impression his emotions were anything other than the most real thing he might have ever felt in his life to that moment.

 

[Me Myself]

Your example is also missing the proper context of what was being said (which is being assumed to have went on in a certain way), which we can't understand in the video.

That is true, but I said it before that all judgements we are making on it are going to be lacking of such knowledge. Yours are also lacking of this knowledge.

I could understand you telling me I am simplifying the emotions if I was saying she was a bad person for what she did or some other sillines like that, but I am not.

I dont think what she did was grave and it is very derstandanble. Its just that it was unnecessary violence, and that is ALWAYS wrong.

 

[Badran]

Motivations come in place, sure, but emotions do not. I can feel any way about whatever I want.

What I do must be based in accordance with motivations, yes, but I dont think the actions one does when overpowered by such emotions can generally be called motivations. You just act. I am sure she just acted. I cant know, but I assume she was too overpowered by emotions to think coldly on what she was doing.

If we are not thinking what we are doing it is no surprise what we are doing is not reasonable.

To avoid getting into a meaningless side debate; i think the emotions of the person at the time of the action, and the reasons behind them (call them motivations or not) do in fact get into the judgement of his actions.

It is conviniently assuming you didnt see it because from almost all angles it owuld be very hard to see it, and also it would be hard to see it from proper angle if you werent paying attention as it was a quiet thing. So the definitely more probable scenario is that you didnt see a thing.

Yes, it is more probably that i wouldn't see it. But what purpose does the example serve then? My actions in it are based in ignorance.

If I see someone attacking another someone who is helpless, it is my moral dutty to step up. She was attacking e man who was, in that moment, helpless.

Actually, he wasn't. He was playing the victim to get away with what he did, which is what cowards often do. Of course, in your example, in which i'd be ignorant of the assault, i would intervene to stop the assault on the seemingly helpless man, until things are figured out.

Is it a big deal? Nah. A pair of bruises is nothing in comparison to the psychological damage he didnt care to put on her.

Good.

It was still wrong.

The action is wrong.

Simplistic notions of right wrong are meaningless without consideration to proper context.

Just like I can understand spa father killing the guy who just raped his daughter even if he is under the possibility of calling the police. It does not mean he did okay, and I am certainly not under the impression his emotions were anything other than the most real thing he might have ever felt in his life to that moment.

That is quite an inappropriate example, because what was done here is more than what was received, unlike this situation where what the woman did was incredibly less than what was received.

That is true, but I said it before that all judgement we are making on it are going to be lacking of such knowledge. Yours are also lacking of this knowledge.

Yes, but you're attempting to create a hypothetical parrallel that is lacking in more than one aspect, including this one. Which is important to point out.

I could understand you telling me I am simplifying the emotions if I was saying she was a bad person for what she did or some other sillines like that, but I am not.

I dont think what she did was grave and it is very derstandanble. Its just that it was unnecessary violence, and that is ALWAYS wrong.

I can say you're simplifying her emotions because you're describing them in a way i find deficient and because you're not properly considering the reasons they exist and what they entail.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not really sure what he was doing, was he grinding his junk on her? If he was she did have a right to tell him to back off or even display some force but kicking his *** was a bit of an overkill to me. UNLESS this was a repeated offense and no one was helping her. Also if I was there I'm a US southern gentleman and I would compelled to tell the guy he needs to move before either the authorities or myself need to get involved. Cause that's how I roll! Clark Kent Style lol:super:

Sexual assault crosses such a line that retaliation is well within reason. Way too many get away with this sort of behavior, largely because society tends to look the other way.

 

[Alceste]

Thats a gamble and an unecessary one. In the video he could have given her way more space if he was afraid. He gave enough to show hands and pretend victimhood, which was his aim, and he tried to control himself to not take the umbrella out of her as she hit him.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Watch some animals. We're animals. Their games of aggression and domination are the same as ours. They choose victims for the exact same reasons we do. They fight back exactly the same way we do, and they back down for the same reasons we do. An animal that has beaten another in a confrontation still remains wary and alert at the very least and maintains their position of dominance or they tend to get attacked again.

If she'd stopped intimidating him and sat back down, he'd very likely have attacked her again. Plus her back would have been to him and she would have been in a confined space, and she would not have been controlling that rather large group of men any more, nor would she still have a clear path to the exit.

 

[Me Myself]

To avoid getting into a meaningless side debate; i think the emotions of the person at the time of the action, and the reasons behind them (call them motivations or not) do in fact get into the judgement of his actions.



Yes, it is more probably that i wouldn't see it. But what purpose does the example serve then? My actions in it are based in ignorance.



Actually, he wasn't. He was playing the victim to get away with what he did, which is what cowards often do. Of course, in your example, in which i'd be ignorant of the assault, i would intervene to stop the assault on the seemingly helpless man, until things are figured out.



Good.





Simplistic notions of right wrong are meaningless without consideration to proper context.



That is quite an inappropriate example, because what was done here is more than what was received, unlike this situation where what the woman did was incredibly less than what was received.



Yes, but you're attempting to create a hypothetical parrallel that is lacking in more than one aspect, including this one. Which is important to point out.



I can say you're simplifying her emotions because you're describing them in a way i find deficient and because you're not properly considering the reasons they exist and what they entail.

I am not following.

So you think there are contexts in which revenge is okay?

The attack stopped. He cant continue because he is being watched. Now violence that serves no cause is justified because it will make her feel better?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

It really annoys me when people try and tell women how they should act when being sexually assaulted.

 

[Alceste]

I clicked on some to the other videos that are I guess scenes in the movie? They were obviously not real and the people were actors so I was starting to wonder.So they had real footage to use as the basis for making fiction ?

I think they're using real footage to tap into public anger about sexual assault for promotional purposes, to get women to go see a movie where a rapist gets his junk chopped off at the end.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think she was perfectly justified, and in my opinion, that guy had more coming to him than what she did to him. The fact that he touched her after she sternly looked at him and was clearly upset with it is more than enough reason to hit him in and of itself. I assume that made her feel unsafe, especially if she comes from a culture where rape and/or sexual harassment is widespread.

If there were emotions involved in what she did, then I think those emotions would be understandable as well.

 

[Me Myself]

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Watch some animals. We're animals. Their games of aggression and domination are the same as ours. They choose victims for the exact same reasons we do, and they fight back exactly the same way we do. An animal that has beaten another in a confrontation remains wary and alert, maintaining their position of dominance or they tend to get attacked again.

If she'd stopped intimidating him and sat back down, he'd very likely have attacked her again. Plus her back would have been to him and she would have been in a confined space, and she would not have been controlling that rather large group of men any more, nor would she still have a clear path to the exit.

We are animals that are a bit more complicated than the others on social behaviour. Yes, we share a lot, we still have our own stuff that is more complex.

She didnt just remain wary and allert, she kept on the assault after he had left her territory and then directly seeked him after he was even farther away.

Who on Earth is talking about sitting back? That would be stupid. She can be standing and holding her ground, or standing and going back while looking at him and pointing with umbrella. She decided to attack him beyond self defense.

Attacking beyond self defense must be grounded on some emotion, whether fear (my guess) , revenge, cruelty, etc. or some goal of course, but ahe already had him respecting her space.

As long as she remained defensive he wouldn t have came back to her, if he did, smackland it was, and even easier as if he comes to her she can get better aim as he is not running from her.

 

[Me Myself]

It really annoys me when people try and tell women how they should act when being sexually assaulted.

It hasothing to do with sex.

Again, if the guy has done that to me, I would have got up yelling and attacked him out of my space. If he doesnt come back at my space, there is no reason to further attack, and the smart thing to do for me is to keep myself standing and keep my space.

Thats the ressonable thing to do. Scandal and then protect your space.

Not revenge. That is not a good mindset.

 

[Alceste]

Sexual assault crosses such a line that retaliation is well within reason. Way too many get away with this sort of behavior, largely because society tends to look the other way.

Also, there is always a fear of looking like you're over-reacting or hysterical when some pervert rubs his junk on you or squeezes you and you give him hell or beat him up. Most women are too polite about these situations. IMO, if someone attacks you, you can go ahead attack back, and who cares what anybody else thinks?

 

[Badran]

I am not following.

So you think there are contexts in which revenge is okay?

The attack stopped. He cant continue because he is being watched. Now violence that serves no cause is justified because it will make her feel better?

While i could not emphatically enough express how i absolutely do think that revenge is okay in some contexts, and how i view notions of suggesting that revenge is always wrong to be extremely silly and often inconsistent, to suggest that i'm saying it's okay just because it makes her feel better ignores everything i described in regards to handling such sexual predators like this one and how this is an effective method of doing so, as been demonstrated to me by real life cases more than once.

It also ignores the culture aspect pointed out repeatedly, which puts a load on women in having to stand up to not just one man assaulting her, but a rampant social phenomena which makes their everyday life much more difficult than necessary.

In short, while i do think revenge is okay in some contexts, this is not solely or even close to such why i think this woman's response was appropriate. My judgement is based on what she most likely has to go through, what situation she was in, and how does her response usually work in regards to these kind of disgusting assaults.