The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

We sometimes criticize the players for being stupid - let's acknowledge the FO for the Giants with 2 of their recent signings

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11464876

Well done Jerry - I hope these guys get what they deserve from the fans and the other players - no 'real' man, and especially an NFL player, should ever beat up a woman

Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.

I disagree with you. There is NO Excuse for striking a woman at all PERIOD. NEVER.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.

2 points here Vet - I am not the one that is jumping to conclusions

1 I was only pointing out the fact that the Giants FO has brought in 2 players that IF you read the article should not have been considered by an organiztion that in the past has indicated they would not normally bring in

don't shoot the messenger - just read the article then tell me what you think

2 There is never a time, EVER, that a man involved with professional sports should physically attack a woman especially not someone that he has a relationship with - I hope these guys get treated appropriately by their friends and associates both on the field and off and I hope they are treated accordingly by all fans in every stadium they play - if we never see them on a field again that is okay by me

Are you really a veteran of the US military that you can make that statement you made?

VetSkinsFan wrote:Nice way to jump to conclusions. I know from personal experience that just b/c a woman has been struck, she is not 100% innocent. If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. I believe that no situation should have to come to violence. Sex is irrelavent. There is no double standard. While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.

What the hell are you saying?

It's never, ever okay to strike a woman.

It doesn't matter if a woman slaps you, punches you or just gets in your face screaming. Only the lowest of scum would actually hit them. There is NO provocation severe enough for a man to strike a woman. "Retaliation?" So what are you saying? If a woman slaps you out of anger you are justified in losing your cool and throwing her down a flight of stairs?

Here in reality if a woman slaps you and you slap her back you go to jail and are forever labeled a wife beater. That's the way it is and that's the way it ought to be.

If you hit a woman, or advocate for the acceptance of hitting women, then you're just not a real man.

I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.

I can say that I've never personally been in that situation, but if it comes down to me or her, then it's gonna be me if I can make it happen. Don't think you can just grab every woman's wrists, look harshly, and think she's going to melt in to submission. Men get abused, and murdered, by women. You're fooling yourself if you think you can never be in the losing end of a fight with a woman.

As for my veteran status and my comment, what law would it break for me to make the comment that I did? The military frowns heavily upon domestic ABUSE, and a conviction can bar a service member from reenlistment, under the Lautenberg Amendment. Notice that it doesn't specify ot applies to a certain sex. Again, where, anywhere, is it specified where a man under ANY circumstances, cannot defend against a woman?

I am not a proponent of men hitting on women, but rarely is there a black and white rule where no exceptions apply.

VetSkinsFan wrote: If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. <snip> While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.

I don't care if someone delivers toys on Christmas Day to homeless orphans in Iceland while curing cancer and solving the banking crisis. Striking a woman is never acceptable. And none of this was "over-exaggerated." The alleged closed fist beat-down by a 300-pound lineman to the face of a woman wasn't "over-exaggerated."

Completely unacceptable.

SkinsFreak wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote: If a woman decides to take it upon herself to strike first, she had better be ready for retaliation. <snip> While one article seems to deem these isolated incidents as hardened criminals, I'd like to see more deatils before I jump to conclusions.

I don't care if someone delivers toys on Christmas Day to homeless orphans in Iceland while curing cancer and solving the banking crisis. Striking a woman is never acceptable. And none of this was "over-exaggerated." The alleged closed fist beat-down by a 300-pound lineman to the face of a woman wasn't "over-exaggerated."

Completely unacceptable.

Now you're jumping to conclusions. Two points:

There were two players mentioned in that article. I didn't see where either one was convicted, but maybe my sluethness is not as good as I hope.

I didn't say that THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION warranted the retaliation that was used. I simply stated that the black and white "a woman should never be hit" was not a statement that I even remotely agree with. Stop 'reading between the lines' and read what's put out.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.

I can say that I've never personally been in that situation, but if it comes down to me or her, then it's gonna be me if I can make it happen. Don't think you can just grab every woman's wrists, look harshly, and think she's going to melt in to submission. Men get abused, and murdered, by women. You're fooling yourself if you think you can never be in the losing end of a fight with a woman.

As for my veteran status and my comment, what law would it break for me to make the comment that I did? The military frowns heavily upon domestic ABUSE, and a conviction can bar a service member from reenlistment, under the Lautenberg Amendment. Notice that it doesn't specify ot applies to a certain sex. Again, where, anywhere, is it specified where a man under ANY circumstances, cannot defend against a woman?

I am not a proponent of men hitting on women, but rarely is there a black and white rule where no exceptions apply.

Are you Chris Brown lawyer??

VetSkinsFan wrote:Now you're jumping to conclusions.

When I said 'completely unacceptable', I was referring to the closed fist beat down to the face of a women.

DEHog wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.

I can say that I've never personally been in that situation, but if it comes down to me or her, then it's gonna be me if I can make it happen. Don't think you can just grab every woman's wrists, look harshly, and think she's going to melt in to submission. Men get abused, and murdered, by women. You're fooling yourself if you think you can never be in the losing end of a fight with a woman.

As for my veteran status and my comment, what law would it break for me to make the comment that I did? The military frowns heavily upon domestic ABUSE, and a conviction can bar a service member from reenlistment, under the Lautenberg Amendment. Notice that it doesn't specify ot applies to a certain sex. Again, where, anywhere, is it specified where a man under ANY circumstances, cannot defend against a woman?

I am not a proponent of men hitting on women, but rarely is there a black and white rule where no exceptions apply.

Are you Chris Brown lawyer??

I can neither confirm nor deny the alleged allegations.

SkinsFreak wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Now you're jumping to conclusions.

When I said 'completely unacceptable', I was referring to the closed fist beat down to the face of a women.

What's quoted in the article, I can agree with you on.

A couple of points to keep in mind:
1) There is no mention of convictions for either player. What happened to "Innocent till proven guilty"?

2) On the other hand, there is no mention in either case of the woman attacking the man 1st. If there were it would change things a lot. I know several women who could kick the butts of 99+% of the men I know.

I will agree that it is always wrong for a man to attack a woman, or for that matter to ever attack a person smaller & weaker than you are. Any attack should be expected to meet a very high threshold regardless of gender.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.

This isn't Mr. and Mrs. Smith okay. Hitting a woman = wrong. Even if she's the aggressor. The reason is because the average man is about 5'10 200 lbs. The average woman is 5'4'' 164. Like I said before, a woman hits you, you hit her... guess who goes to jail?

The reason it's the man is because the physically weaker of the two is ALWAYS going to be the victim. Someone bigger and stronger is expected by the laws of our society to either stop the situation without violence or leave the situation. If a woman were to hit you and you simply leave the situation and call the police, then she would go to jail, you hit her back and you're a social pariah and a bully.

That's not just the law, it also makes the most sense, and it's all part of social contract.

The fact that anyone could possibly disagree with this (and thus be advocating for violence against women) is surprising, but then again that's why COPS has been on all these years.

Skinsfan55 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I've served with men AND women who could more than handle themselves in handle themselves in hand to hand combat. That's one of the many things that we're trained to do.

This isn't Mr. and Mrs. Smith okay. Hitting a woman = wrong. Even if she's the aggressor. The reason is because the average man is about 5'10 200 lbs. The average woman is 5'4'' 164. Like I said before, a woman hits you, you hit her... guess who goes to jail?

The reason it's the man is because the physically weaker of the two is ALWAYS going to be the victim. Someone bigger and stronger is expected by the laws of our society to either stop the situation without violence or leave the situation. If a woman were to hit you and you simply leave the situation and call the police, then she would go to jail, you hit her back and you're a social pariah and a bully.

That's not just the law, it also makes the most sense, and it's all part of social contract.

The fact that anyone could possibly disagree with this (and thus be advocating for violence against women) is surprising, but then again that's why COPS has been on all these years.

I can respect your opinion and in most circumstances, you're right. But that doesn't cover 100% of the time. That's all I was trying to illustrate(poorly, obviously).

VetSkinsFan wrote:I can respect your opinion and in most circumstances, you're right. But that doesn't cover 100% of the time. That's all I was trying to illustrate(poorly, obviously).

Vet, I totally understand what you're saying. It's not right for a man to hit a woman and it's not right for a woman to strike a man.

Can't we all just get along?

Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?

but, but, but... that's different.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?

but, but, but... that's different.

Correction, he didn't stomp a mans head into the ground, he stomped a COWBOY'S head into the ground, to me that made him a honorary skin!

broomboy wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Didn't we just sign a guy that stomped a mans head into the ground with his cleats? That was the Redskins amirite?

but, but, but... that's different.

Correction, he didn't stomp a mans head into the ground, he stomped a COWBOY'S head into the ground, to me that made him a honorary skin!