Alright, let's walk through your little essay on violence, which gets progressively worse as you run your mouth:

> You'll be an absolute snot just so that you can gain the upper hand in an argument. And so you might reach a point where I and people like me get tired of your bullshit and walk away, and then you'll declare yourself the victor because you were the last person to make a post in my comment thread, but all you're doing is making the person on the other side want to punch yourself in the face.

Point #1, disagreement means that you have the right to punch someone in the face. Although, I can't understand why I'd want to punch myself in the face if I was winning an argument against you.

> If we were having this argument in real life and I was a more naturally violent person, I'd probably hit you, and then in your eyes I'd become the bully and you wouldn't be guilty of anything.

Point #2, debate with you and your gross stupid generalizations gives you the right to be violent, AND when you commit violence on someone else they should feel guilty because they deserve it. Their accusations of oppression and violence are unwarranted because they dared to piss you off with words.

> If you're guilty about being arrogant and annoying, then when you get teased and beaten up it's not causeless. You caused this. And the other side is more at fault then you are, but don't act like you're a saint.

Point #3, you believe that harming someone physically and emotionally is a valid response to verbal remarks, and that this violence is "not causeless". Doesn't matter what "causes" it, it's the wrong response, therefore the cause is irrelevant. Additionally, you believe that a person does not have the right to non-violently be as weird as they want. You think they should adapt their behavior to please the more violent members of our society.

>> Should battered wives admit that they are partially at fault because they annoyed their husbands?

> If you get beaten and do nothing about it, it's your fault that it goes on. See, two sides of the same struggle can both be guilty. The husband is more at fault, but if the battered wife acts like there's nothing she can do then she's to blame for it going on.

Point #4, victims very commonly are, by definition, unable to defend themselves. Either due to psychological controls, physical domination, or economic realities. What worries me the most about this statement is that you claim both sides are guilty, which implies that you feel some women deserve the beatings. If you knew anything about abused women and children you would know that no amount of changing stops the abuse. It is entirely the fault of the abuser because they are the one with the power, and they are the ones using it.

> Same with rape. If you get raped and do nothing about it, you're letting the other guy get away. The other guy isn't innocent. This isn't a blame game where it's the victim's fault entirely. But the victim does not exist in a vacuum, and the fact that the problem still exists suggests that in some way the victim is complicit about the problem.

Point #5, you believe that victims of rape did not do enough to defend themselves, and therefore are complicit and responsible for their lack of skills. Obviously your fictionalized and trivialized movie version of rape doesn't involve nearly as much violence as it really has.

> One day I might write something about how much bullies suck, but other people are already doing this. I don't like being generic.

And with this, in one single statement, you define how much of an idiot you are. If you don't like being generic, then why the hell were you nothing but a bag of gross generalizations in your stupid little essay?