Does this count as winning a fight?

[diebitter]

You think it was a 2-way thing? I just read between the lines, assumed he wanted himself to sound good coming out of it so built up the nature of the little guy (I laughed at 'tough-looking' or whatever it was) and also assumed he'd picked on some little geek who offered frail resistance or was trying to run away (== 'come at me' - hehehe), got him in a head-lock, maced him, and just beat him.

I think we'd have got more detail if it was really a 2-way thing.

It's not a fight.

[The once and future king]

Yes but then again the non lethal weapon seems like an arbitrary distinction. If someone punches you and you pull a gun and shoot them non lethaly, (or lethaly for that matter) have you won a fight?

[ScottyP431]

Actually, you are not thinking this through. Using a bat vs an unarmed opponent does not = winning a fight. Did you beat the other guy down? Yes. It was not a fight.

Implicit in fighting, especially when you initiate hostilities as the op did, is a social contract of fairness. Going around picking fights only to then use a weapon of some kind violates said social contract. Its like hitting other speed skaters at the olympics to knock them down. It's cheating. And cheaters never win. You're argument boils down to justifying me saying i beat michael jordan 1 on 1 cause i hit him in the knee Tania harding style and then ran circles around him as he lay on the floor unable to move/crying.

But more importantly, the use of mace degrades the entire notion of a masculine test of manhood which is obviously what he is going for (whether you agree with it or not) when he says his goal is to win a fight. If you provoke someone smaller than you into a fight, and then use a headlock and mace, you have lost a lot more than just the fight, and you have won nothing (though you have been entered into the biggest douche in the universe contest,so you could still win that)

[steelcmg]

He forgot to mention that he probably got his ass kicked the next day after the dude was able to see.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we'd have got more detail if it was really a 2-way thing.

It's not a fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to go back and re-read it, but I thought he made it pretty clear that the little dude made physical contact somehow. If he just walked up to him and put him in a headlock, then I agree, but if it was clear that a physical confrontation was inevitable and immediate, then its a fight.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone punches you and you pull a gun and shoot them non lethaly, (or lethaly for that matter) have you won a fight?

[/ QUOTE ]
I draw a distinction between a fight and a murder. If you beat someone with a bat, its a fight. If you beat them to death, its a murder. The difference is important enough to warrant legislation.

[jaydub]

There is no social contract in a fight. Your analogies do not apply because there are no rules in a fight. If you doubt this then you probably have not been in many fights.

[Clarkmeister]

I'd like to note that I have no idea who that poster is, yet he was already on my ignore list from some unrecalled previous transgression. The system works!

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we'd have got more detail if it was really a 2-way thing.

It's not a fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll have to go back and re-read it, but I thought he made it pretty clear that the little dude made physical contact somehow. If he just walked up to him and put him in a headlock, then I agree, but if it was clear that a physical confrontation was inevitable and immediate, then its a fight.


[/ QUOTE ]

If he cornered a little guy, then little guy must make physical contact, especially if OP deliberately blocks his exit. Or a scared little geek could be provoked enough to do a little wimpy push back without too much effort, I'd say?

I do agree if little guy was aggressive, then it is a fight - but I just don't read the subtext of the OP that way at all.

However, this is geting too speculative, so shall we just agree to differ?

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Implicit in fighting, especially when you initiate hostilities as the op did, is a social contract of fairness.

[/ QUOTE ]
See, this is the fallacy. We even had a thread on this not too long ago. There is no structure to a street fight. There's no concept of "fairness." The bullshit chest bumping and posturing that prefaces many fights is ridiculous, and the second you "step up" in my face, making it clear that you want a fight, I'm going to clock you. And then try to break your hand/wrist/arm while you're on the ground. That's precisely why there's a difference between a boxing match and a street fight, and that's where your basketball analogy breaks down. Boxing is given a defined structure which changes it from being a brawl to being a "fair" fight.

[ QUOTE ]
But more importantly, the use of mace degrades the entire notion of a masculine test of manhood which is obviously what he is going for (whether you agree with it or not) when he says his goal is to win a fight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that a test of manhood was what he "obviously" wanted, but if you'll read my post, I agree that winning the fight in that manner would provide no such satisfaction if that was indeed the ultimate goal.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Or a scared little geek could be provoked enough to do a little wimpy push back without too much effort, I'd say?

However, this is geting too speculative, so shall we just agree to differ?

[/ QUOTE ]
If so, then he has to accept the consequences of getting into a fight, whether they were forced on him or not.

But without further elaboration from OP - hardly an unbiased observer, unfortunately - you're right. Can't really tell what was going on.