So what's your answer then?
Be more specific. Is the attacker with a knife big; is the person defending him/herself slight?
Your example could be yes or no depending on the particular circumstances. In general, however, if a threat to life is perceived then it is morally alright to defend oneself, even to the most extreme measure.
Why ask me? Does it?
You are the one who assumed that I had no direct experience; I merely gave you an answer.
my comments were based solely on my experiences in practice?
...and therein lies your information gap. While personal experiences are important; it is best to overview as much information as possible outside of your domain which may be jaundiced.
I would have thought that if your observations in court aligned with your arguments you would have mentioned that, rather than relying on your blogs, stats and videos.
The fact that you ignore statistics and other reference materials only limits you.
I could also say all the studies you've put forward are anecdotal too in that they cannot be tested as to their veracity or otherwise.
Several hundred studies involving hundreds of thousands of individual cases cannot be considered anecdotal. If you don't understand this then you are the type of attorney who likes to play with words and definitions. I'd probably kick you out of my office as well.
I'd hate to be in the poor judge's shoes who has to make equal custody by virtue of a guillotine law....
Now you are losing it; where in modern society is there a guillotine law? I cannot comment on something that does not exist. This does though and in Australia;
The above link should also help answer the premise that women (de facto) receive default custodial judgments when children are the issue.
if we adopt your model, no one would have to go to court because custody would be 50/50 automatically
Wrong (yet) again. I oppose quotas in any form. I merely advocate real equalilty and justice no matter where it falls.
Non payment of child support really irks me. Does it irk you?
The judicial system is cruel to men and often ignores their loss of employment. If a man truly cannot pay then is it justice to send him to jail? If he has the means to pay then he should. The backside of this however, is rarely addressed. Women frequently prevent visitation rights; not necessarily all the time but now and then and yet demand child support. Women are not put in jail when they do this even though it can easily be argued that young children have a need of a male parental influence even more than money. Also, how the money is spent by women is also rarely put to a court case (do women who divorce wealthy men after only a few years of marriage really deserve $20,000 per month for child support? Does the kid eat that much?) etc, etc.
I'm not really interested in your opinion but I am interested in the facts and material in support.
You are contradicting yourself. You've already stated that you wanted my personal experiences and suggested that the Fiebert studies are merely anecdotal. So which is it?
A quick edit; dare to read the whole article and examples it provides.
Animosities are part of the process. Women felt that way for a long time, so if men have a chance to experience it, it should create more mutual understanding,
This is female logic fellas but I suspect you already know that. Evidently aphrodisiac
agrees with this premise which parallels hers:
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience
This shocking comment was made by none other than the Assistant Dean of Students at Vassar College. Colleges and universities are extremely left wing.
So it is okay for men to have their world and life turned upside down because according to feminist 'logic' (actually it's 'feelings'), men must be punished unfairly so they can learn. Scary stuff!
I know a bit about feminism
LOL, indeed you do.
Now, I've been asked to list some laws (out of many) that discriminate against men and favor women. Here is a partial list;
1)The Selective Act, which forces men to register for the draft, or they will be fined and imprisoned.
2)The Violence Against Women Act, which only protects women from domestic violence and leaves men with no where to turn if they are stuck in an abusive relationship.
3)Executive Order 11126, which established a committee and council on the status of women. Please note that no corresponding committee or council on the status of men exists.
4)Executive Order 13506, which established a White House Council on Women and Girls. Please note thatno corresponding White House Council on Men and Boys exists.
5)The Executive branch has a Office on Women's Health, under the US Department of Health and Human Services. Please note that no corresponding Office on Men's Health exists.
6)The various Rape Shield Acts, which only protect the identities of female rape victims.
7)The Various Primary Aggressor Statutes, which force police to always arrest males in domestic disputes, even if they were the victims of domestic violence.
The above language was borrowed from another source but it is succinct and am listing it as is for brevity's sake. Happy to enumerate as needed.
Seems like my 'victory' is complete. No responses to laws that favor women. I've only listed a few above but there are many more. No real responses to the evidence presented that women initiate domestic violence as often as men but report it nine times more because the "take it like a man" philosophy still endures and keeps men quiet. No responses to the obvious bias against men when women have special 'womens' offices and departments but men have none.etc, etc.
So I'll leave this presentation to the objective participants who do not fear 'real equality' as opposed to the loaded bullcrap that is known as feminism.