RandomFan
-
Posts
168 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by RandomFan
-
-
Ugly win is so much nicer than a pretty offense loss
Yeah, but a pretty offensive win is better than both.
-
Hard to say, depends on which browns team shows up. 21-17 colts
-
Fair enough, we all have our own opinions. Maybe if you didn't have such a "She got what she deserved," attitude people probably wouldn't misinterpret your opinions. It's pretty simplified when you simply say I don't feel sorry for her vs maybe she hit him first, she deserved it and got what's coming to her and trying to turn it into this philosophical garbage about equal rights and acceptance.
Your flawed comments such as:
Hitting a man is just as wrong as hitting a woman. Neither should be looked at as "more acceptable".
Just because there's a drastic size difference that doesn't make her hitting him any more ok if she did hit him.
According to your arguments the very few times I've been hit by women, it would be just as acceptable for me to hit her back which is absolutely not the case. In this case if his wife did hit him, it would be HIGHLY more acceptable than him hitting her.
If you want to get "technical," it is more socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man. That doesn't mean it's condonable by any means. That being said, I don't think we will ever live in a society where it is just as acceptable for a man to hit a woman as it would be vica versa and neither should we.
WRONG, you keep getting my argument wrong. I thought you had it figured out until I ran across this sentence. My argument is NOT that its acceptable to hit ANYBODY. My argument in the case that you just described is that it was wrong for her to hit you and you were wrong if you hit her, period.. Also, her hitting you shouldn't be swept under the rug as no big deal just because she's a woman. I know as of right now its more socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man. That is what I'm AGAINST and I do think slowly but surely that is no longer becoming the case. You see more and more guys nowadays starting to wake up to the flawed logic that a woman should be able to get away with hitting a man because shes "weaker" and yet a man should be crucified if he hits a woman. You don't see as many "white knights" as you use to see.
So one more time, my argument is that its just as wrong to hit a man as it is to hit a woman. Not that its just as ok to hit a woman as it is to hit a man. I think they are both equally wrong and neither is more wrong than the other.
-
Sounds like you have some personal experience with this situation bud. I'm sorry you feel laying out a woman is ok if she's attacking you.
I would not have wanted to run into the woman who gave you such fits...
I probably should've fought back when Mom was swinging at me eh????
Nope, I have zero personal experience with this. Nice try trying to spin this into something its not tho. Old debating tactic people use when they are losing. I never once said it was "ok" to hit anyone. My whole argument is exactly the opposite actually. That its wrong to hit ANYONE. Not just women and its equally as wrong to hit a man.. And keep your hands to yourself if you do not wish to fight someone or get hit by someone. That is my argument. Learn to read and comprehend what I am saying. What I said is I don't feel any sympathy for any woman or man that hits someone and then gets hit back. Not that its "ok" or that I would even react the same way myself. I just don't feel sorry for these people or treat them as "victims".
-
To follow up on my last post. My argument is this just to be clear, BEING WEAKER does not mean you can or should be able to get away with hitting a stronger person. I never ever understood this argument. You know the other person is stronger, yet you decided to hit them anyways. Now you live with the consequences. Comparing grown women to children is more of an insult to women than anything I've said. Women want equal rights, I'm treating them equally. Keep your hands to yourself there will be no issues. If you attack someone and you get attacked back, who's fault is it? The way some of you talk about women you would think they were too stupid to make correct decisions. Decisions like, keeping your hands to yourself if you want hands kept off you.
In closing, the weaker arguments holds no water. A hit doesn't have to hurt a certain amount in order for it to be wrong or in order to anger someone so even bringing it up is irrelevant. Women are not children. If you want respect you give respect. Keep your hands to yourself and there will be no problems. Hitting a man is just as wrong as hitting a woman. Neither should be looked at as "more acceptable".
-
Nah that's not how it works with women and children. What are you going to lay out a little kid because he "hits," you?? I've been hit by women before and it doesn't really hurt bad, nothing like getting slugged by a guy. Hence no reason to retaliate and bare knuckle slug a woman in the face.
There are a couple options, just leave or subdue her physically. Men can physically subdue a woman without having to knock her out or throw a hay maker. I've had to assist in subduing a woman when she attacked her boyfriend with a sharp object. We simply got her on the ground, took the sharp object and told her to go outside, leave or calm down. This was literally about as rabid as any non homicidal woman on the planet could've been acting.
So now a little kid is comparable to a grown woman ? LOL, women are like children now? If I was a woman I would be insulted with that comparison. If women are in any way like children then we should stop with the whole "equal rights" campaign right now. You realize there are also guys that are WAY STRONGER than other guys right?
So If a guy that is way weaker and smaller than another guy punches the bigger guy in the face, the bigger guy should just take it and walk away right? And you would also walk away if a smaller guy were to ever hit you right? Your argument is weak at best.
First of all, it doesn't need to hurt like hell for it to be assault or for it to be wrong. I've been hit in the face by guys and it didn't hurt much. So what, because it didn't hurt much I should just take it and let it slide?
Being a woman does not give you the right to go around assaulting people and then play the "I'm a woman so you can't hit back" card. Women that play this card get ZERO sympathy from me. Its men that defend these actions that are the problem with society. If you're gonna play the stronger weaker angle then you gotta play it across the board, not just when its a woman and a man. This is how I know you and other white knights with this mindset are full of it.
-
Complete ignorance on your part. I'm happy you don't respect my opinion. I would be disgusted and disappointed with myself if we agreed.
Nothing ignorant about my post. Keep telling yourself that tho. I think its pretty ignorant or "stupid", for lack of a better word, to go around hitting people and expect them not to hit you back.
-
No a woman hitting the man is not the same thing as hitting a woman. It's not in the same ballpark, or same zip code for that matter. He's a pro athlete, she's not. It's not complicated at all. If you have zero sympathy for her that's on you dude. I don't agree with you, and I have no respect for your opinion in that regard.
I didn't say I had zero sympathy for her. I don't know if she hit him first or not. I was talking in general when I said that. I said I have zero sympathy for ANYBODY man or woman that put their hands on somebody *hit them* and then get hit back. You don't have to respect my opinion, I don't respect yours either. My stance is simple. If you don't wanna get hit then don't go around hitting people. Once you attack someone, what you get is what you get and you only have yourself to blame.
-
I'm happy you found humor in the situation. But if you hit a women you don't deserve millions of dollars. In fact you deserve 0's of negative amounts of dollars.
I found humor in your response.
-
So if a 5'4 105lb woman hits a 5-8 208lb dude it's going to cause a lot of damage? Even if she hit him there is no excuse for physical retaliation. I never said it was okay, but there is a major difference in a punch from her and a punch from him.
I said nothing about "causing alot of damage". So, as long as a hit doesn't cause alot of damage we should just dismiss it as "no big deal"? Hitting a man is just as wrong as hitting a female. I don't care how much damage it caused. Besides, a womans punch or slap can hurt a great deal if she gets a clean shot. If you put your hands on somebody and you get hit back, I have zero sympathy for you. Keep your hands to yourself next time.
-
He hit a woman he doesn't deserve a second chance at anything.
Lol, yes he does. He didn't commit murder.
-
Even if she did hit him first there's a drastic size difference. He's an NFL athlete, so unless she's using brass knuckles he's not going down.
Just because there's a drastic size difference that doesn't make her hitting him any more ok if she did hit him.
-
Between the Broncos, Colts, and the Patriots your basically just flipping a coin.
-
Anyone who makes the playoffs has a legitimate chance.
A chance maybe, a legitimate chance? I don't agree.
-
slowly but surely the colts are turning into the crappy browns
-
What I think is hilarious is that we have no shot at signing Blount since NE did and yet we're still having this conversation. Just let it go...
-
Actually to be the best you must beat the best in January
Dudley's point is that as long as we make the Playoffs we have a chance, any given Sunday right? Look at 2006... Defense steps up out of nowhere to win us the SB. There's a lot of football to be played between then and now and strange things can happen. You saying we will play NE in the playoffs and have 40+ dropped on us is as big a reach as me saying we will make the playoffs and blow away all before us in our SB conquest. Who knows what will happen, but I'd rather dream and hope then moan and mope.
No its not. One of those scenarios is not a reach at all considering its already happened 3 recent times at both our place and their place.
-
The way I see it, the "culture" of this team is one of trying to keep from losing rather than going all out to win. When you play a team of the calibre of the Pats, you do not kick a field goal on a 4th and 2 (or less) when you're driving and trying to match touchdown for touchdown. Yes, you get an easy 3 points, but you're falling behind in the process. And why not try being creative on first down when the other team least expects it? Being conservative and "soft" in the face of a physically and mentally determined team is not going to get you anywhere. You have to play smash mouth with a smash mouth team, or at least do your best to try to do that.
Not sure I agree with this. The only thing more demoralizing than driving down the field and settling for a FG, is driving down the field just to get no points from it. That is a huge momentum swing if you go for it and don't get the first down. There is a time and place to do that tho, I just don't think the first quarter down 7 is the time.
-
SB here we come!!
-
What did he do? With crap being defined as being better than an average TE last Sunday. No, he didn't do crap.
He spent most of the day blocking which he did an amazing job at and when his number was called *which wasn't often because they didn't need to call on him often* he made plays. He was only targeted 5 times and he caught it 4 times for 71 yards and a TD. So in other words, when they wanted to throw it to gronk, they threw it to gronk.You really think GRONK wasn't targeted more because of brown being on him? LOL.
-
Right. So he would have had 9 catches for 180 yards and three TDs if he was asked to. So would have Jack Doyle a few weeks ago, if he wasn't asked to manhandle the Eagles safties and LBs from the FB position.
Too bad Doyle was asked to be a FB, or else he would have had 10 catches for 190 yards and 4 TDs against the Eagles, bettering Gronks imaginary performance.......
I watched the game, and Gronk didn't do crap except pick on the smallest guy on the field.
You continue to prove you didn't pay close enough attention to the game when you say things like this. Nothing else needs to be said here. You just don't know what you're talking about.
-
Gronk's stat line: 4 Receptions, 71 yards (26 of which came on the scoring play). That's not a man-handling at all.
He had 149 yards and 3 TD's against Chicago, and 105 yards and a TD against Denver.
Lots of uninformed posts in here.
Anybody who thinks gronk was shut down is the uniformed one. They didn't throw it to gronk alot because they didn't need to throw it to gronk alot. Gronk was blocking the whole day and the run game was running wild. If you think gronk didn't have better numbers because he was "shut down" then you didn't watch the game. Its pretty much that simple.
-
If you want the colts to advance as far as possible the last thing you should want is to see the patriots again. Also, this isn't a great rivalry, its just a funny one.
-
Is he good anymore ?
Is the team more Super Bowl ready than last year?
in Colts Football
Posted
I think this will be another year of being good but not good enough, so no.