Outside of self defense, is a man ever justified in hitting a woman?

Outside of self defense, is a man ever justified in hitting a woman?

Yes . 

Is it justified meaning necessary to satisfy that which is essential to accomplish a particular goal.

This can be subjective but it is at its core of what justification is. 

For instance. A man is justified in hitting or striking a woman to save her life. 

Such as in her midsection to dislodge or relieve a constriction in her airways. 

Another would be hitting hard with a tackle to avoid a severe injury or being hit by something else much more massive and devastating.

Another example would be by sexual striking. Particularly the man hitting specific regions on a woman's body that would be justified or necessary to satisfy the goal of sexual climax.

I'll yield there. If you think about what physically hitting is and what it can amount to, think outside the conventional box.

"What if that goal is morally evil? That's not what "justified" means. Justified means enough good comes out of it to counter the bad.

Men shouldn't hit women. Women are too weak. Only women should hit women to make things fair, like in sports."

Number one. I don't argue over definitions. I don't debate definitions. That's not what they're for.

I simply explain what I mean by the use of words in my position and it is up to you to discover a contradiction or self refuting stance within those terms and words I use.

For instance using what you just said without trying to argue the meaning of words, going by what you just said...."Only women should hit women to make things fair, like in sports".

This is a justification you're trying to point out so going by the same justification of basis , men can go by the same basis.

You just stated something that can still be in favor of my position thus discrediting yours as an actual opposing position.

You just agreed with mine.

"A man hitting a women will never save her life. It will injure her too much and cause more harm to her. In emergencies, only women should hit women to make sure the hit helps more than it hurts."

This isn't a rebuttal to what I said. I don't know if you know how to debate or make a rebuttal. This is a constant behavior from you I notice.

Saying it will never save her life doesn't disprove that a man tackling a woman which is a strike which is a physical hit upon her body which moves her out of the way of an actual mortal strike from something like let's say a bus.

To actually make a rebuttal, either prove tackling the woman does not save her life and leaving her in front of the bus getting mortally struck actually saves her life.

Or just concede like I often ask you to that this is an example of meeting the goal of saving her life which is justified because it met the goal of saving her life.

"Sexual hitting is not good in my opinion. That whole culture is so sus. Let's keep this debate out of the bedroom. Sex is only justified if the purpose is procreation. Hitting is not focused on children but pleasure."

The opposite side is waffling.

The first statement is in opposition but then concludes with a justification that agrees with my point just dancing around it.

It's like for the opposite side, this subject is just too deep. If we think in depth, sexual reproduction is a series of hitting, is it not ?

It's hitting one midsection and genitalia with another.

Take your mind out of the box of just hand to hand or whatever body parts used in a conventional combative context.

So this is the second time I believe at least you've agreed with me once you look at things on a grand scale as opposed to in one dimension in a box .

" "Hit" implies violence, not help. "Hitting" someone to help isn't violence. Violence is a crime, but saving a life is the opposite of a crime."

Word of advice to you again. When you interact with people, debate people, go by what they mean by the words they use. Not what you interpret.

Just like the slang expression "I hit that".

Don't go by your interpretation but go by what the person means. In this example, it's a vernacular expression.

That's why I came up with this topic to see who would run with a first impression read on it, jump on it , moving without any type of circumventing first .

I rest my case .

"The word "hit" implies violence and harm, so it will never be helpful and justified"

You are the circular point maker master. I've said what I said about implication.

"Moving someone from one location to another is not hitting."

Right, I said "tackle" , not "move". Don't MOVE the goalpost. You commit the most famous of fallacies when you debate.

''The word "hit" has negative connotations in it because it is never justified. A "hit" in self-defense doesn't count as hitting."

We're not going by connotations like we're not going by implications.

All this is a dodge from refuting my points.

Is this the best this site has?

Self defense does count according to my position.

Moving the goal and making a strawman, it's just like not cooperating with the rules of the game in order to win.

"This can be compared to the words "kill" and "murder." Killing in self-defense or by lawful authority is not called murder.

Hit means an unjustified strike that is violent and causes no benefits and only harm."

Just for the sake of honesty, from the way I'm defining " hit" which is to physically touch towards an immense force is a neutral action until justification or justice without is demonstrated , say you see the valid point.

"Sexual hitting is not needed for reproduction. Plus, only the genitals hit."

See right here, the opposing side cocndedes.

Why put up the front ?

You concede it is hitting. Which can be justified, which is a justified an example that demonstrates the topic on my side true.

Debate is over, thanks.

"People have sex with people, not genitals. Body count is based on people, not things. The body parts do whatever they do. Also, sex isn't a choice because orgasm is a natural reaction, not something that is done voluntarily. It's not even hitting because it's not violent or force."

The opposing side said " Plus, only the genitals hit"........." only the genitals hit"......" only the genitals hit".....keyword "hit".

You concede it is hitting. Which can be justified, which is a justified an example that demonstrates the topic on my side true.

Thanks.

See, when you debate, going into a debate, important, very important, words are hugely important to pay attention. Really in all communication. Words are very very important, see.

By the opposing side's words, the person hung the person's own words and agreed.

"Honestly, sex is already hard to justify. The woman should be hitting the man anyway. Man-on-top makes no sense. Even giving a woman more sexual power cannot justify sex in itself."

See this is like a desperate move to flee your concession and own self refutation trying to backpedal argumentation out of what you just said.

Even here, you say sex is hard to justify. That's fine. Doesn't mean it's impossible, does it?

So really moot points talking about what's necessary for sexual reproduction and what's difficult to justify.

Just to show how shallow the thinking of yourself and people are, not only just our physical bodies can be justified in hitting and pressing, our genetic material also presses or hits, with one burrowing into another, that's scraping the surface which is PRESSING which is hitting just like hitting buttons, you're pressing buttons, rubbing against the surface of them.

So in these kind of topics, many of these topics, think more of context as opposed to the way you personally define things.

"It refers to destruction and abuse. Just like sexual profanity refers to degradation and violence. The English word "hit" is completely cursed."

Here we go again. Get what the person means when that person uses a word or phrase. You may not have learned this yet because I use to think in complete uniformity myself.

If a person means in a justified fashion, you have to concede in all honesty and not misrepresent what somebody is saying.

But bottom line, you yourself classify an example of a man hitting a woman with the genitalia, whether it's genitalia or a fist , doesn't matter, which you did not say is impossible to justify because it would be foolish. Our original ancestors justified themselves or else we wouldn't be here.

The opposing side said " Plus, only the genitals hit"........." only the genitals hit"......" only the genitals hit".....keyword "hit".

You concede it is hitting. Which can be justified, which is a justified an example that demonstrates the topic on my side true.

"You concede it is hitting. Which can be justified, which is a justified an example that demonstrates the topic on my side true."

Opposing side conceded and forfeited.

Thank you .