justdontok
justdontok
justdontok

Restrains = / = violence. I didn't say someone has the right to shoot, punch or body slam them to the ground. Have you ever restrained a child? If you think it's violent, I'm horrified at finding out what you think of other types of physical contact. You've misconstrued my words in order to fit you belief that I'm

Right, I will deal with it by living up to my personal values and beliefs, which means, I won't hit back. I will attempt to run away or have the person restrained, but I would never, and have never, hit anyone, because I don't believe violence is the answer to anything. Ever. My ex had a reason for smacking me

So violence is ok, because the law says it's ok. Sorry, I don't mean to be ignorant, I just am a firm believe that no one, not even the state, has a right to inflict violence upon anyone else. You don't hit, smack, punch, shove, etc other people, irregardless of their actions. I don't believe in it, and I never will.

"Put down permanently"? You mean murdered? Why the dehumanizing vague language? If you believe it, say it: The people who hit people may get killed. They may die because they believe in violence (as do you). So, following your logic, you may be killed as well, because you believe in violence as an answer. Am I missing

That doesn't make any sense. Instead, you're showing them that violence is an acceptable response to something: even if that something is other violence. I don't get it. It doesn't deter people, it tells them to be prepared to be even more violent next time so the person can't do more damage when they respond with

Like I said, culture of violence. When someone steals from you, it doesn't make it ok for you to steal from them. One for one is not the way adults live. And it's not the way our society should live. But, you, and most other people, are so ingrained in it that you can't even see it any more. You hit me so I hit you is

I'm sorry, you never have to finish anything, especially with violence. It's statements like that which cause a woman to be dragged out of an elevator after being punched into a blackout. Violence is never correct. Ever. Your acceptance of a violent behavior makes people like Rice think that it's ok for him to punch

I thought twice about a lot of things in that relationship: speaking, saying no to sex, questioning his decisions, complaining when he slept with other women, etc. I say this because: hitting anyone at any time is not ok. It's not ok to hit someone who has hit you in anger. There is no justification for violence. It

On one hand: women can be abusers too, so when women hit, smack, or threaten their partners it should be taken seriously. On the other hand: no one has a right to hit anyone, even if they are hit first. On the third hand (we're going mutant like up in here): Rice is probably twice, if not three times larger than his

My best friend and I have been using Momo to mean "moment" for over a decade now. "I'll be there in a momo" is a common comment. I refuse to give it up to this bullshit "Mystery of Missing Out"

Holy crap. She literally looks like she took a walk in the park! This woman is amazing! I love this show because it is a true show of athleticism and she was a stunning example. All the way Kacy!

Ouch, I'm so sorry you felt that way about therapists! Yeah, I'll toss in the whole "I'm a therapist and I honestly CARE!" but you're right, there were/are some clients that I honestly do not care about. I dread them coming in. I dread the time I have to think about them, because they are EXHAUSTING. I call

Ok, here's my take on this as a rape crisis counselor, and a social worker: It sounds like he was trying to understand the situation - probably not to find out how much blame he can place on you, but to create a situation in which he could "see" it. Maybe was was looking for a reason why someone would rape, maybe he

Yeah, I don't want to see 90% of the shitty photos on facebook, but that's facebook, ya know? Just ignore the shit you don't want to see, no harm no foul.

I read the article, it actually seems that they ruled in his faovor because he had an ongoing relationship with the mother of the child prior to the child's birth, and then a realtionship with the child up until the age of 2. This doesn't give sperm donors the right to seek paternity, but rather, continues the already

Right, sorry, guess I just used the common vernacular to make my point (my bad). From what I understand, there are some studies being done (I think at UPenn?) about the actual change of genes - or how the expression of the genes in the parents changes the genes in the child or something to that fact. I'm sure you'd

Actually, abuse, like the abuse described above, actually changes you psychically - your brain and (recently discovered) your genes are both altered. Your bullshit statement is not only insensitive and troll like (which was recently shown to mean you probably have psychopathic tendencies) but also wrong. Nice try.