You aren’t going to break your knuckles using a bat. Actual fist fights are bad for your bones. A weapon will not only make it easier and faster but also protect your body from hurting itself in the process.
Also the idea that “oh he feels weak because he’s using a bat and not being a real man and using his bare fists” is pretty fucking dumb ngl. Not only are you making an assumption, but you are leading the answer to confirming that assumption in the way you worded the question.
so you're saying armed vs unarmed is ok, multiple people vs one person is acceptable? that's how you view a fight should be, one side at a disadvantage? Like shooting a man in the back 7 times, that's fair, at least they didn't hurt their poor knuckles.
Life isn’t a game, this isn’t a playground. This isn’t 2 people agreeing to have a friendly or organised fight. This is someone being caught in the attempt to commit what most would consider a heinous crime and being stopped with the threat of violence and made to peacefully and passively stay put until arrested with the same threat of violence.
You don’t get to have an honourable duel with a fair clean above the belt fight offered to when you try to fuck a 14 year old.
Also that entire post is a strawman argument. It’s a bad look on the website to have people using logical fallacy as their entire argument. Please try harder.
Also on the question of “do you think fights should be unfair, one side at a disadvantage”
Yes, generally speaking it would be preferable that the victim or the person defending a victim or the person stopping someone from becoming a victim have a distinct advantage and be more likely to win the fight.
true, but given the size of the guy with the bat, he doesn't need it. but for those that can't fight, they do, those that think "wait until i get my friends to beat you up", they're just pussies. Yeah, life is not fair, but if you have the advantage, why give yourself more so by using a weapon, takes a true hero to do that doesn't it, don't want to break a nail, use a bat.
"true, but given the size of the guy with the bat, he doesn't need it. but for those that can't fight, they do"
why is it your place to decide this? What logical reason is there to not use a bat? please give something other than than "but fair fight" or back up said "but fair fight" with a logical reason why a fair fight is important outside of a game, friendly fight, or arranged ruled structured fight where both parties agree to rules and no one is committing a crime and further in the specific when preventing a crime and protecting someone from becoming a victim.
""wait until i get my friends to beat you up", they're just pussies"
thats not only an attack on a non-present third party, but also either a strawman or a red herring fallacy, not a point.
"Yeah, life is not fair, but if you have the advantage, why give yourself more so by using a weapon, takes a true hero to do that doesn't it, don't want to break a nail, use a bat. "
that's an appeal to emotion, not a point. The objective of doing what he's doing is to get results, not fall in line with some arbitrary honor code stopping you from effectively protecting people.
ok, the guy wanting to meet a 14 year old girl, he's in the wrong, so gets beat up with a bat, fair enough, a 14 year old that bullies my son, 10, hits him, it's fair i beat him up with a bat as well.
judging by your last post, seems odd you think they should press charges for "fals imprisonment", the guy with the bat, would be jailed for assault with intent to maim or kill
"ok, the guy wanting to meet a 14 year old girl, he's in the wrong, so gets beat up with a bat, fair enough, a 14 year old that bullies my son, 10, hits him, it's fair i beat him up with a bat as well. "
this entire post is a strawman argument as well as a false equivalence fallacy.
No where in the post is it said he started a fight. he has a legal right to detain a criminal in the act of a crime. He also has a right to defend himself with a weapon should the criminal attempt to start the fight is has the weapon to stop happening in the first place.
Also, that whole second post is a mix of a personal attack fallacy and an appeal to hypocrisy.
Please stop using logical fallacy when you try to argue a point. Ill say again, its a bad look for the site to have people doing that and its just generally bad form and, should you be doing it on purpose rather than out of ignorance, is disingenuous and actively attempting to stop any functional discussion.
no attempt to stop any discussion, not trying to impress anyone with big words either, simply pointing out that if you were so adament to want to press charges for false imprisonment, then you'd be all for pressing charges on a guy with a bat.
He's not commiting a crime. He's using his legal right to detain a criminal in the act of a crime.
"not trying to impress anyone with big words either, "
thats a personal attack and a red herring fallacy, not a point or a justification.
Trying to deflect away from the fact you are arguing with things that are logical fallacy by attacking my character, implying that im only calling you out on your disingenuous argument tactics to impress people, and also trying to make it look like you are justfied in using logical fallacy in your arguments.
"if you were so adament to want to press charges for false imprisonment, then you'd be all for pressing charges on a guy with a bat. "
thats a false equivalency and an appeal to hypocrisy.
Stop using logical fallacy in your arguements. You havent made a single point that isnt a logical fallacy yet.
The Russian dad is indeed a big guy and he definitely looks like he wouldn't need a bat to destroy the scumbag predator. The point you're missing is that if he just wants to put the fear of God into Romeo, if he wants to dissuade the POS from EVER daring to contact his daughter again, rather than actually assaulting him, then the bat is an intimidation multiplier. It's one thing to imagine what a big angry dad would do to you with his fists alone, quite another to imagine him wielding that bat and selectively breaking multiple bones at will.
Edit: search YT for Eric Kanevsky. He has a channel where he lures predators to scare the living shit out of them. The last featured him, and his two equally intimidating brothers, armed with a baseball bat, an axe, a plugged in iron AND bolt cutters!!!, confronting a 21 year old who came to prey on a 14 year old boy. It's all intimidation and implied violence, so the props are an essential factor.
Also the idea that “oh he feels weak because he’s using a bat and not being a real man and using his bare fists” is pretty fucking dumb ngl. Not only are you making an assumption, but you are leading the answer to confirming that assumption in the way you worded the question.
You don’t get to have an honourable duel with a fair clean above the belt fight offered to when you try to fuck a 14 year old.
Also that entire post is a strawman argument. It’s a bad look on the website to have people using logical fallacy as their entire argument. Please try harder.
Yes, generally speaking it would be preferable that the victim or the person defending a victim or the person stopping someone from becoming a victim have a distinct advantage and be more likely to win the fight.
why is it your place to decide this? What logical reason is there to not use a bat? please give something other than than "but fair fight" or back up said "but fair fight" with a logical reason why a fair fight is important outside of a game, friendly fight, or arranged ruled structured fight where both parties agree to rules and no one is committing a crime and further in the specific when preventing a crime and protecting someone from becoming a victim.
""wait until i get my friends to beat you up", they're just pussies"
thats not only an attack on a non-present third party, but also either a strawman or a red herring fallacy, not a point.
that's an appeal to emotion, not a point. The objective of doing what he's doing is to get results, not fall in line with some arbitrary honor code stopping you from effectively protecting people.
this entire post is a strawman argument as well as a false equivalence fallacy.
No where in the post is it said he started a fight. he has a legal right to detain a criminal in the act of a crime. He also has a right to defend himself with a weapon should the criminal attempt to start the fight is has the weapon to stop happening in the first place.
Also, that whole second post is a mix of a personal attack fallacy and an appeal to hypocrisy.
Please stop using logical fallacy when you try to argue a point. Ill say again, its a bad look for the site to have people doing that and its just generally bad form and, should you be doing it on purpose rather than out of ignorance, is disingenuous and actively attempting to stop any functional discussion.
"not trying to impress anyone with big words either, "
thats a personal attack and a red herring fallacy, not a point or a justification.
Trying to deflect away from the fact you are arguing with things that are logical fallacy by attacking my character, implying that im only calling you out on your disingenuous argument tactics to impress people, and also trying to make it look like you are justfied in using logical fallacy in your arguments.
"if you were so adament to want to press charges for false imprisonment, then you'd be all for pressing charges on a guy with a bat. "
thats a false equivalency and an appeal to hypocrisy.
Stop using logical fallacy in your arguements. You havent made a single point that isnt a logical fallacy yet.
Edit: search YT for Eric Kanevsky. He has a channel where he lures predators to scare the living shit out of them. The last featured him, and his two equally intimidating brothers, armed with a baseball bat, an axe, a plugged in iron AND bolt cutters!!!, confronting a 21 year old who came to prey on a 14 year old boy. It's all intimidation and implied violence, so the props are an essential factor.