What's with moids being so quick to violence? Has anybody seen this in person?
I have and it's crazy how quickly these psychos will start attacking people if you bruise their ego in the right way.
Surely a sign of arranged marriage
>>Literally just their inferior biology.
>>This is what testosterone does to you.
But arranged marriage would make me completely pissed off with every aspect of my life
>the moidlet hitting the moid in the floor and handing the other moid the baton
They are literally born chimps and im tired of women having excess sympathy for male children.
I have seen it with a deranged distant family member but thankfully not much else.
I'd have more respect for it if it actually had anything to do with honor/what's right like defending others. But, nope.
Men are born to kill. This is the reason that working in an office is so soul crushing for many of them. All they wana do is freak out and kill their coworkers or rape their secretary.
Yes, literally go to any cheap bar or sports event and this exact scene will eventually play out.
>Has anybody seen this in person?
Crazy to think up until a few thousand years ago this was so common it was how everyone died. Almost every remain found from ancient humans died a violent death. There was no concept of peace. No matter how unga bunga your tribe was you would get a spear or rock or arrow at some point.
It is certainly true that it was far more common to die to violence, but the majority of people throughout time have mostly died to illness, even if we don't include the ones dying at childbirt/as children.
Men were literally built to do this. They are biologically pre-determined to do this. It wasn't a bad thing 10000 years ago, as it was needed for ragrok to be aggressive and low-inhibition to protect his family, but nowadays it really is nothing but a side-product of their testosterone.
Never been in those situations, but it is why I appreciate my husband's ability and capability for violence he very carefully regulates. In case shit hits the fan I want a moid that is peaceful, not weak.
>Seeing a 14 year old leap over a sofa, cover 20 feet in less than a second and jump-latch on a 19 year old and savage him like a flipped out chimp
What are you even saying here, that is extremely impressing. You are unironically lucky to have a brother like that
She's simply stating her shock at the male capability for violence, something culture has quite carefully shielded her from viewing the majority of her life. Depending on her personality, it was probably distressing to see someone I assume she cares about who usually doesn't act incredibly violent be capable of such an act. A lose of innocence in the sweet dream which is society let us say.
Are you seriously more upset about your brother defending you than your piece of shit boyfriend hitting you?
>>109391>capability for violence
Was he supposed to sit around on his ass on the sofa and watch is her asshead boyfriend slapped her and potentially could have beaten her up?
"Capability for violence" when protecting your literal family is a normal thing. If i had a child, and that child was in grave danger, i too would have heightened "capability for violence" to protect them. Would you not resort to violence to protect your really loved ones when there is hardly any other choice?
What he did was genuinely impressive. A boy at the start of his puberty leaping over 20 feet and attacking a fully developed man 5 years older than him to protect his sister IS impressive.
Moids start fights over the most random things, and yet this retard is getting angry over the fact that her little brother didn't just sit idly as her poor boyfriend choices got her nearly beaten up.
Most dogs and cats will do this too. Saw a video on reddit of a whole barn yard of animals coming to save a chicken under attack. I get your meaning but I don't see defense as a similar act of violence as offense.
You seem to be incredibly angry about this and I'm uncertain why. I believe it's because she stated she was shocked concerning an act of violence happening right? I don't believe she said it was negative or unwanted or anything like that, just shocked. Is it not okay to be shocked at someone you've never known to be violent to suddenly be violent? If anything that seems to be a very understandable situation, but I am open.>>109396>I get your meaning but I don't see defense as a similar act of violence as offense.
I assume you mean that you don't seem them as having similar moral valence correct? Punching someone in defense and punching someone in offense is the exact same act of violence, it's only the morality of the issue that changes.
No I see them different in the same sense I see a Dr cutting me open to remove my appendix is different from a man stabbing me. Cosmetically they are similar but it stops there. Not that my opinion is going to change a formative memory you had long ago.
Oh derp you're not the original anon I didn't read the first part. Assume my last line isn't directed at you.
Her brother fought a man 5 years older than him, risking his own health greatly to protect her from her own poor choice of men, and yet she is saying that he is a savage for doing this.
I think she is being extremely ungrateful, and she demonstrates a grave lack of self-awareness.
She brought an impulsive, manipulative man into their home
, who attacked her after one argument, and when her brother saves her, she acts like her brother is somehow at fault for this and that he is a primal savage for doing one of the most basic human things aka protect your loved ones.
I still don't get what you want here. What do you think should he had done? Should he have just retreated to his room and masturbated to some porn while she got beat up?>Is it not okay to be shocked at someone you've never known to be violent to suddenly be violent?
That's the issue here, it is normal to be violent. Go to anybody who was never violent, threaten the safety of someone they loved and watch them get violent.
Here let me give you an example, it's a bit non-sensical, but it's 9PM so i can't make up a good story:>Let's say a psycopath breaks into a family house where currently only the mother and her newborn son is present>attacks the baby, puts a knife to his throat, and tells the mother that he is gonna slit the son's throat in an hour, and she is gonna have watch it>midway through the hour, as he prepares, he lets his guard down, and the mother attacks him with a baseball bat>psycopath unconscious and has a concussion
Is the mother a primal savage for being "suddenly violent"? Should she just have sat around and watched as the psycho slit her son's throat?
In my opinion no, she just did one of the most basic human things that could be done.
This is normie-tier understanding. No deep thinking, no considerations of the actual reasons, just jumping at conclusions to prove your points>moids are violent though
Yes they fucking are littler EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT AN EXCEPTION
knows this, that's not my point here.
>>109412>That's the issue here, it is normal to be violent
*it is normal to be violent in cases like this.
I don't want to get lost in the analogy, a stab in offense is the exact same physical action as a stab in defense. Don't even bring in the doctor because doctors don't stab and cut the same way petty criminals do, the action is physically distinct in it's nature.
>>109412>That's the issue here, it is normal to be violent.
Okay now what if I magically took you on a journey into the mind of someone who didn't think being violent is normal/default. Would you know understand why she was shocked? Again I'm not her.
I made a mistake there when typing and left out parts of what i wanted to say.
Ok so what if the criminal sedated me and performed surgical cuts on me. Honestly that sounds terribly worse than a shanking, but it doesn't change my view on the drs actions at all.
>>109412>Is the mother a primal savage for being "suddenly violent"?
Yes. Just because you have negative connotations to the word "savage" doesn't mean everyone else does.
I feel like I'm getting stuck in a language game, what is your definition of "violence"?
>>109419>akshually calling my brother a primal savage and saying that them defending me from an aggressive man i brought into our house changed my view of them forever isn't necessarily negative!!!!!!! Not everybody thinks that calling someone a primal savage is bad yk???
Stop playing word games.
>>109422>Stop playing word games.
Alright, how do you define "savage"?
Agreed I'm probably arguing semantics but I also think that's the point I originally made. I guess I don't think I'd say she would have been violent to respond in defense, and no one would accuse her or savagery for defending herself, so why is it violent for someone else to do the same? It's more than a moral difference, it's tonaly different. I would not be shocked if a otherwise reserved person defended themselves, in the same way I would be shocked if an otherwise reserved person attacked someone. And though both interactions are physical, I don't think the defense is violence. I guess I can't describe it better than that.
Seriously? You are either trying to bait me, or you are autistic and need a strict definition of every detail mentioned from the definition of "savage".
Here, let me give you the simplest point, without any word games whatsoever>she brought an aggressive moid into their family house>aggressive moid turns aggressive and assaults her>puberty-stricken little brother attacks aggressive adult moid to protect sister from getting assaulted gravely risking his physical well-being, and potentially risking ending up in a hospital if the aggressive moid who is older and probably larger than him manages to beat him up>she blames her little brother for this calling him a "savage" who is "one trigger away from being primal" with utterly no self-awareness of the fact that she brought an impulsive stranger into their home who risked both her, and her little brother's safety
Here let me tell you my main problem with this: It's her complete and utter lack of self-reflection. She risked her family's safety because of her poor choice in men, and attacks her kid brother for intervening in a situation which could have ended in her getting beaten unconscious.
This is extremely similar to a deadbeat mother bringing home drunk bottom-tier druggy men to have sex with, and when those drunk men get aggressive and beat her up her son saves her.
Except contrary to those situations where the deadbeat mother is generally thankful to the son, she outright attacks him and trash talks him for it.
This question is so dumb it doesn't merit a response but I want to comment that it's always those who live under the shelter if peace who say such asinine things
Well I gave you the chance to broker a definition, and if you don't want to that's fine, I will however, and say that both are acts of violence, and violence is performing any act with the intent to harm (not help) another human being through physical means. One act may be "immoral" (murdering someone in cold blood) and the other "justified" (retaliating against a muderer), but both are violent.
>>109428>askes me to stop playing word games>I comply and give her the way out of the word games>accuses me of baiting and outright insults me
You seem to be a narcisstic bully, so I'm not going to indulge you anymore. If me actively attempting to comply with you request warrants insults then I'm literally punished for trying to interact with you. On what fucking earth would any sane person do that you narcissistic asshole? Either apologize and we can continue talking or fuck off.
Oh look, my interpretation that she was just shocked and not negatively degrading moids by calling them savage was correct. Hot damn.
NTA but the other one, and I'd also agree she was not degrading moids but simply shocked
I'm not sure wether i misinterpreted your reply. From my point of view>I wrote lots of stuff about the moral point of view>you start talking about wether savage (which in it's use literally denigrates a person as "brutal/vicious") is actually a bad word>interpret this as you playing word games and instead of focusing on this random word you should discuss the moral parts of it>you ask me to define savage>i get annoyed
I am sorry for being a bit too short tempered and insulting you, it's night here, and i am especially sorry if i misinterpreted the situation.>>109433
I still wholly believe that what your brother did was normal. Yes, even gentle people get aggressive when their loved ones get attacked. Big bummer, who could have guessed.
Would you not intervene if let's say your brother got a sporty-fit girlfriend who was stronger than him, and would assault him during an argument?
Would you not intervene if your daughter was assaulted by her boyfriend?
What did you expect your brother to do? I really want to know this.
Also the wording you chose was really bad, calling him "savage" and "primal" for saving you from your poor choices without giving much detail is not a good look.
In under any other circumstance, a 14 year old boy springing to action to save his sister who got assaulted by a 19 year old man would be regarded as a hero.
>>109438>>I wrote lots of stuff about the moral point of view
I could tell, but I also didn't see the connection between that and her being shocked that her brother was violent. Sheltered people exist, she was shocked because she was shocked.>>you start talking about wether savage (which in it's use literally denigrates a person as "brutal/vicious") is actually a bad word
See now that's a definition, the only definition of savage I know is "violent, wild, frightening" no connotation of brutality outside of just being violent in general. If it inherently meant violent in a negative fashion "noble savage" would be an oxymoron.>I am sorry for being a bit too short tempered and insulting you, it's night here, and i am especially sorry if i misinterpreted the situation.
I understand you interpreted her post originally as using "savage" in a negative context, hell it might have actually been negative, but I don't know how much of a better job she can do clarifying that her point was that it was shocking. For some people this event would be shocking, not everyone thinks the same way you do, they have their own thoughts, experiences, personalities, and perspectives. I imagine on average most women on this board are so alienated from the male experience that I'm glad she has a brother to at least show her that while men are certainly violent, most of the time they're just fucking goofballs.
Anon, it's not like he become some aggressive dude bro out of nowhere. He reacted accordingly to the situation. Most people aren't going to kindly ask the aggressor to please stop hitting someone.
Jealous, my brother just chimps out on me.
My little brothers friend when they were bothe around age 8 was making fun of him saying he had a crush on Miley Cirus or something and my brother pushed his friend over grabbed both of his arms by the wrists and then started kneeing him in the face repeatedly.
Someother things he has done in greentext
>punched his grade 1 teacher (female) in the face
>also in grade 1 was bullied by a kid in grade 3. Turns out he has a wasp allergy. When he was stung on the hand it swole up and he got excited, because now he could hit his bully with his swollen hand.
>my parents decide to put him in karate so he learns discipline (lol) in grade 6 he gets in trouble for roundhouse kicking another kid in the face unprovoked
>many other fights throughout school too many to list
Even women who 'roid become more aggressive when on test. It really is a hell of a drug tbh.
>anon wants to fuck her brother and can't cope
You really are being dishonest. There's no way "every single one of them, just one trigger away from being Primal. Savages" can be read as anything but negatively. It's also very telling that she ends up lumping both her bf who straight up assaulted her and her brother who defended her into a "them", thus presenting both acts of violence as equivalent. Also you're both showing very little empathy towards the brother. Can you imagine how traumatic it must have been for a 14yo kid to see his big sister, who seemed to be his protector, being assaulted in his own home, supposed to be a safe haven for the family?
Moid hands are behind these posts.
1. If men weren't violent you wouldn't need other violent men to protect you
2. I have no clue but I know their violence can and does extend the act of defending their sisters/mothers/children as seen in the countless gore videos, especially the mexican cartel ones, it's fucking terrifying. And it's men 99% of the time. The way they kill their rivals extends the normal capability of violence among animals.
they are wired to be this way, obviously you needed to be violent if you wanted to protect your wife and children in the stone age from predators and attacks by the bubabunga tribe.
>>109591>1. If men weren't violent you wouldn't need other violent men to protect you
Certainly true, too bad violence will always be necessary in a physically embodied world.
even if men had evolved the same way as women there would always be genetic mutations that caused some men to differed from that norm, that would could cause that individual to be violent or malevolent, and since al the other men would have been "pacified" or what ever you want to call it, none of them would lift a finger to the malevolent ones demands and or actions
therefor its unfortunate but because of the random nature of the universe men would always have evolved the way they did in order to account for any abnormalities
To an extent, but as I said in 2. not to THAT extent. Animal kingdom is certainly full of violence but they don't skin each other alive or scalp entire faces and eyes off and record it on a phone.>>109606
They don't have to be pacified. Women can also be violent, and I think the capability for violence in women should be preferred over men's.>therefor its unfortunate but because of the random nature of the universe men would always have evolved the way they did in order to account for any abnormalities
Maybe, but you can't know that for certain.
>>109607>To an extent, but as I said in 2. not to THAT extent. Animal kingdom is certainly full of violence but they don't skin each other alive or scalp entire faces and eyes off and record it on a phone.
animals have been observed to act violently purely for the sake of violence before, such as horses on farms stomping on chicks for no reason
How did they know it's for no reason?
Don't horses do this because they can't see small animals and don't pay attention to their surroundings? Not because they're violent.
>>109374>go to generate gathering point>find degenerates
Why does this keep happening?
>>109607>To an extent, but as I said in 2. not to THAT extent. Animal kingdom is certainly full of violence but they don't skin each other alive or scalp entire faces and eyes off and record it on a phone.
Chimpanzees will viciously destroy other chimpanzees. There animal kingdom is full of violence. We can have a nice long talk about "oh, it's just necessary to survive", but the closer you get the humans the more elaborate the violence.
But aren't Chimps and Bonobos more peaceful?
Chimpanzees are straight up "will mangle your arms and bite your face off" type of violent. Troops of Chimps will fight each other for the littlest of reasons.
Bonobos are more the "will rape you into compliance" flavor of violent. Which is where the meme that Bonobos are "peaceful" came from.
It's a lie of course, Bonobo scrotes can be just as violent with each other as Human scrotes are, they just like to spend more time fucking around (literally) so it seems like they're not as violent as Chimpanzees and Humans are.
Chimps literally kill their children dumbass.
Bonobos don't, but that's probably because they are too preoccupied with having lots of sex.
The only truly peaceful great apes are orangutans.
Humans and chimps are every similar so I'm not surprised
Your brother, your blood, who probably loves you and holds you in high regard, saw you get assaulted in his home flipped out over nothing?!
If you knew you possesed the physical ability to defend and knock his ass would you not do it yourself, or like your brother use it to defend someone you love?
Not sure if anyone has said this talking point but I think with men, I don't really expect them to explode into violence? Duh. What I don't trust them with is how they react in a situation of entropy.
Easy one? Think about what would happen if society collapsed or there was only one girl left in the world. Quite frankly I'd expect men to turn into monsters–at least enough that it'd be irrational and dangerous to trust a random man.
Generally if other men were encouraging him to do a bad thing, would he? Would he follow suit if other men were doing it? Would he do it if he thought it'd increase his status to other guys? What if there was no consequences? Men brag about how tribalistic they are all the time, after all.
This is why I side-eye men that posture about being good people in the most comfortable context. You don't actually know them or how they react.