Drunk Bully gets one hit KO'd

[Ballistics]

It seems quite obviously inferred to me, without a direct quote necessary to lay it out the way I did.

What you did, was take the disapproval of sucker punching and the sucker puncher, and manipulate it into some maniacal evil plot of the disapprovers with if/else logic.

Nah, I just followed it to its logical conclusion. Do you reach a different one and, if so, what and how?

If nobody is strong enough to confront him and come out victorious, what's the conclusion other than the one I laid out?

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases.

And you got this apparent idea from where exactly?

Logic. It's the only conclusion one can reach in such a scenario.

You're using logic, but what are you basing your logic on?

The extremely hypothetical situation, where no one in the crowd is able to stop this individual from bullying others, then sure, blind siding him would make sense.
But that would be a completely different video wouldn't it? This guy was focused on these 2 guys, who perhaps taunted him in the first place? I can only speculate on that.
The fact here however, is that the sucker puncher was clearly capable of putting this guy down, and felt that he could and executed it precisely. How could he not? He had a good 15-20 seconds to size this guy up.
But that's not what was taking place in this video.

If I knew the bully was in the wrong... and he was torturing 2 guys because they wouldn't/couldn't defend themselves, I would have made it a point to break it up and make it known that if it doesn't stop, it will probably get messy.
I would never just blind side someone. That's a level of low that I couldn't imagine stooping to. It's got nothing to do with being a 'real man'. It's got nothing to do with being an alpha male.

No one is saying that the bully is in the right or that he didn't deserve what he got. No one is defending the bully.

 

[Ballistics]

I wish my C+C threads got this level of attention

 

[Buckster]

Lauding "grey shirt" as a hero and brave, could not be further from the truth.

Did someone laud him as "a hero and brave"?

It was a few posts up, not word for word, but I think you know which I am talking about.

I think we should use people's actual words when trying to counter them, but that's just me. It's why I use quotes extensively - so there's no confusion about that. "Lauding grey shirt as a hero and brave" is a fine, if that's what someone actually did. If not, its just straw-manning.

Or maybe he figured drunk bully would likely beat him to a pulp if confronted like a "real man", and he really didn't have much interest in that as a "solution".

"grey shirt" was standing with a friend, discussing the "drunk guy's" actions. Surely his friend would have helped him if he decided to intervene.

Conjecture, at best. We have no idea if anyone, including his friend, would have jumped in to help. It does make me wonder though - at what point can the friend "jump in" and gray shirt still be a "real man"? Can that happen while gray shirt is still on his feet, making it two against one, or does it have to be after he's already on the ground, bloodied, and maybe unconscious so his friend can then suffer the same fate?

The idea, apparently, is that if nobody in the crowd is stronger, faster and tougher than drunk guy, he should be able to carry on as he pleases. If everyone else is weaker, slower, with little or no fighting ability, their only choices are to cower silently in the corner or confront him like a "real man" and, one by one, get their a$$e$ beat down for it, until drunk guy has had enough fun beating the schit out of anyone who dares to try to be a "real man" and fails.

The strongest sociopath in the herd thus "earns" the right to take what he wants, do what he wants, get what he wants. That's the lesson of insisting that people act like "real men" in situations like this. Meanwhile, the smaller, weaker, slower people are required to cower silently in the corner or be ridiculed as a "coward" for taking out the bully any way they can.

Talk about animal mentality...

In the true case of a "bully" that may be true. This appears to be a case of the "drunk guy" having a problem with they guys in the black and red shirts, as I explaned above.

That is what it appears to be to you. To me, such a description is pure conjecture. It appears to me that drunk guy is indeed a belligerent bully, looking for a fight and using any excuse at all to have one - with anyone.

In any case, we don't see either of the two you try to frame as perpetrators do anything in particular to justify physical violence on his part. Your "maybe" they did something before the vid started is just out of the ball park in terms of conjecture. Hey, if we're going to do "maybes", maybe someone else who's no longer even at the scene started it, and drunk bully just thinks it was the two you want to blame. Or maybe he's just a mean and confrontational drunk and the whole dis by the two guys is all in his head.

But none of that actually addresses what I'm actually saying anyway, which is about a much broader social issue surrounding the "real man" mentality, not what the circumstances are in this one particular instance.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Seems like a high-quality, highly educated crowd.

 

[Canuk]

Afro-guy created the situation and persisted until somebody got hurt. Better him than somebody else, and hopefully next time he will think better of it next time he gets all drunk and aggressive.

Sure it was a sucker-punch by grey-shirt, but at least someone stood up to a bully.

This was the quote I was talking about Buckster. Not exactling "lauding him as a hero", but no the less giving him accolades.

 

[Canuk]

In any case, we don't see either of the two you try to frame as perpetrators do anything in particular to justify physical violence on his part. Your "maybe" they did something before the vid started is just out of the ball park in terms of conjecture. Hey, if we're going to do "maybes", maybe someone else who's no longer even at the scene started it, and drunk bully just thinks it was the two you want to blame. Or maybe he's just a mean and confrontational drunk and the whole dis by the two guys is all in his head.

But none of that actually addresses what I'm actually saying anyway, which is about a much broader social issue surrounding the "real man" mentality, not what the circumstances are in this one particular instance.

Unfortunately, neither one of us will actually know what happened before this video started. The scenario I laid out was one that I would suspect happens every weekend outside bars all around the world. The "drunk man" appears to have problems with only 2 people in the crowd, would you not agree?

I am a little confused though, what social issue about "real man" are we talking about?

 

[Buckster]

What you did, was take the disapproval of sucker punching and the sucker puncher, and manipulate it into some maniacal evil plot of the disapprovers with if/else logic.

Nah, I just followed it to its logical conclusion. Do you reach a different one and, if so, what and how?

If nobody is strong enough to confront him and come out victorious, what's the conclusion other than the one I laid out?

And you got this apparent idea from where exactly?

Logic. It's the only conclusion one can reach in such a scenario.

You're using logic, but what are you basing your logic on?

The extremely hypothetical situation, where no one in the crowd is able to stop this individual from bullying others, then sure, blind siding him would make sense.

How do you know that's not the case here? And what's the difference if there's someone in the crowd that can take him on and be the victor or if there's not? How do the individuals in the crowd determine if there is one who can be the victor over drunk bully, and is willing to engage in a violent brawl with him? Do they tell drunk bully, "hold on while we decide if anyone here is a "real man" that can beat the schit out of you", then poll everyone to see if there's anyone with martial arts training and a willingness to engage in battle with drunk bully?

I mean, how do you see that determination realistically playing out?

But that would be a completely different video wouldn't it? This guy was focused on these 2 guys, who perhaps taunted him in the first place? I can only speculate on that.

That's exactly right - it's just speculation, and appears completely made up to help justify the view drunk bully has every right to be going after them and that this punch by gray shirt is an act of cowardice and that a "real man" would have stepped up and got in drunk bully's face and said, "now see here, my good man! You shall end these acts of aggression, or I shall be forced to engage in fisticuffs with you!"

The fact here however, is that the sucker puncher was clearly capable of putting this guy down

In the way that he did, sure. But in what you would probably call a "fair" fight? We have no idea. He might just as easily ended up a bloody mess on the ground and, since he didn't confront drunk bully directly, that's probably what he was thinking would happen if he did.

and felt that he could and executed it precisely. How could he not? He had a good 15-20 seconds to size this guy up.

And, after sizing the guy up, he decides not to confront him directly for some reason. That's evidence enough for me to conclude that he thought there was a damn good chance drunk bully would have beaten him to a pulp. Otherwise, why not confront him directly and be the crowd's hero?

If I knew the bully was in the wrong... and he was torturing 2 guys because they wouldn't/couldn't defend themselves, I would have made it a point to break it up and make it known that if it doesn't stop, it will probably get messy.
I would never just blind side someone. That's a level of low that I couldn't imagine stooping to.

Tell us again about your martial arts training, which makes you quite capable of handling it in that way.

It's got nothing to do with being a 'real man'. It's got nothing to do with being an alpha male.

Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?

No one is saying that the bully is in the right or that he didn't deserve what he got. No one is defending the bully.

Obviously.

 

[Ballistics]

Misunderstood.

 

[Buckster]

In any case, we don't see either of the two you try to frame as perpetrators do anything in particular to justify physical violence on his part. Your "maybe" they did something before the vid started is just out of the ball park in terms of conjecture. Hey, if we're going to do "maybes", maybe someone else who's no longer even at the scene started it, and drunk bully just thinks it was the two you want to blame. Or maybe he's just a mean and confrontational drunk and the whole dis by the two guys is all in his head.

But none of that actually addresses what I'm actually saying anyway, which is about a much broader social issue surrounding the "real man" mentality, not what the circumstances are in this one particular instance.

Unfortunately, neither one of us will actually know what happened before this video started. The scenario I laid out was one that I would suspect happens every weekend outside bars all around the world. The "drunk man" appears to have problems with only 2 people in the crowd, would you not agree?

No, I wouldn't. I don't know that it's not a simple case of them having the simple misfortune of having been in the guy's drunken sights for no reason other than he doesn't like the way they look, or where they happened to be standing, or that they made eye contact with him, or that they were flashing the peace sign and saying chill out, or because they looked weak and easy to pick on by him, or what. My sense of it is that ANYONE could have easily become his next target for any reason or no reason at all.

I am a little confused though, what social issue about "real man" are we talking about?

The one I laid out using the word "sociopath" that you responded to. The "King of the Jungle" "Winner Take All" animalistic justifications based on a mentality grounded in violence that "real man" confrontation is really all about.

 

[Buckster]

Tell us again about your martial arts training, which makes you quite capable of handling it in that way.

All was fine until this comment. Conversation and respect for you both reduced to 0. That was petty and unnecessary. I mentioned martial arts training once pal and it wasn't even pertaining to handing this guy.
Real dickish of you.

Not dickish in the least - realistic.

Tell us how you handle it if you're 5'2", 145 lbs and have no fight training at all? Be a "real man" with that little ass holding you up and show us how you confront drunk bully.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?

Agreed.

A lot of you seem to think confronting a drunk, confrontational bully who is actively seeking a fightwould have made him a "real man" and not a "coward". So basically, put himself in harm's way so he could be a "real man", instead of just ending the situation.

In a sense, he was the only person brave enough to take action to end what was happening.

And to all of you minimizing what the bully had done in this video, there are three clear physical attacks by him on three different people in varying degrees. He had already hurt other people with no clear end in sight.

This person neutralized the aggressor; perhaps his actions shouldn't be celebrated because of the manner in which he did this, but to condemn them seems baseless.

 

[Ballistics]

Tell us again about your martial arts training, which makes you quite capable of handling it in that way.

All was fine until this comment. Conversation and respect for you both reduced to 0. That was petty and unnecessary. I mentioned martial arts training once pal and it wasn't even pertaining to handing this guy.
Real dickish of you.

Not dickish in the least - realistic.

Tell us how you handle it if you're 5'2", 145 lbs and have no fight training at all? Be a "real man" with that little ass holding you up and show us how you confront drunk bully.

Ah, I thought you were insinuating that I was overtly bragging in some way, as in "Tell us again" sarcastically. My mistake. Conversation and respect restored

Yeah, but the fact is, you're making up a scenario. The sucker puncher, and both victims are all about the same average size. Size aside, no one is justifying the bully.

The one I laid out using the word "sociopath" that you responded to. The "King of the Jungle" "Winner Take All" animalistic justifications based on a mentality grounded in violence that "real man" confrontation is really all about.

Who is talking about this? I still don't get it.

 

[Ballistics]

Then why are the words and phrase "real man" and "coward" being used by those who find it so wrong that gray shirt did what he did?

I never said anything about being a real man. But me calling him a coward has nothing to do with anything you make it out to be. I'd rather see the situation diffused rather than detonated.

 

[Canuk]

Tell us again about your martial arts training, which makes you quite capable of handling it in that way.

All was fine until this comment. Conversation and respect for you both reduced to 0. That was petty and unnecessary. I mentioned martial arts training once pal and it wasn't even pertaining to handing this guy.
Real dickish of you.

Not dickish in the least - realistic.

Tell us how you handle it if you're 5'2", 145 lbs and have no fight training at all? Be a "real man" with that little ass holding you up and show us how you confront drunk bully.

You don't, you leave. But that wasn't what was happening here was it?
I will stand by my use of the words "coward" and "real man" in the context that I used them. I'm quite sure that you will not be able to convince me otherwise. Sucker punching someone that is not looking, when you are not even involved in the situation, is cowardly. The men that the drunk guy assaulting, were not in danger of life and death. There was obviously a lot of police presence in the area, so why could they not have gotten to help?

 

[Buckster]

The one I laid out using the word "sociopath" that you responded to. The "King of the Jungle" "Winner Take All" animalistic justifications based on a mentality grounded in violence that "real man" confrontation is really all about.

Who is talking about this? I still don't get it.

Setting aside for the moment this one particular video and the circumstances in it (which has been beaten unconscious at this point, if you'll pardon the expression), some words and phrases used in the conversation got me interested in talking a bit about the associated social mentality of what it means to be a "real man", a "coward", a "sucker punch", etc.

In my opinion, all of that goes back to a very primitive, animalistic mentality wherein whoever can beat up everyone else in a head to head confrontation can do whatever he wants, unopposed. It's the way animals determine who the leader is, and the leader gets first choice of everything and everyone; Does what he wants, when and how he wants, without question. That's the law of the jungle.

But we're not in a jungle anymore. We're not primitives anymore. And we don't have to put up with the idea that the biggest, strongest MF'r who can beat up any challenger in a "fair" fight by a "real man" who confronts him directly gets to have whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants it, simply by virtue of the physical traits that enable him to kick everyone else's a$$.

I think it's about time to move on from that primitive mentality as a species, and stop using words and phrases that encourage it like "real man" and "coward". Let's move on to the idea that violence as a means to gain control and show superiority over others is unacceptable, and that putting a stop to it is justified, even through the use of a so-called "sucker punch".

Just my opinion, mind you.