"You can do anything"

If Trump shouldn't be president because of his sexual harassment or worse of women, then (on the face of it) it seems arguable neither should some presidents have been president because they did the same or similar (e.g. JFK who may have coerced an intern named Mimi Alford to give oral sex to a friend of his while JFK watched).

If fair is fair, then the same people who have (rightly) criticized Trump should likewise criticize former presidents like JFK and Bill Clinton who sexually harassed women or worse. These same people should say something like: Trump shouldn't be president because he is a sexual predator, and neither should JFK or Bill have been president because they too were or are sexual predators.

However, I won't hold my breath because many of these same people who are criticizing Trump have a double standard when it comes to their own side. They will only criticize people who don't share their political views rather than being fair-minded and consistent and criticizing anyone (regardless of political affiliation or politics in general) who has sexually harassed women or worse.

In fact, if they were truly fair, then they would also criticize women who have sexually harassed men or worse. For example, if a woman touches or grabs a man's leg or butt, and he doesn't want it, then it's possible she has sexually harassed him.

Liberals label

Many if not most liberals routinely use disapproving labels in lieu of reasoned argumentation. These liberals will label conservatives stupid, backwards, evil, etc., then immediately move to the supposed implication that therefore people need not and should not listen to this or that position put forth by a conservative.

For example: conservatives are greedy capitalists who don't care about the poor, therefore pay no attention to any plans conservatives propose to improve the economy.

Another example: conservatives are racist, therefore whatever conservatives say about blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minorities is false.

Or: conservatives are misogynists, they don't have women's interests at heart, therefore we can safely dismiss whatever conservatives say about a woman's right to choose.

Closer to home: conservative Christians are poorly educated, anti-scientific hicks and rednecks, hence no need to consider anything they say about the theory of evolution.

Examples could be multiplied. But the point is, liberals who label in this fashion are not only illicitly reasoning, but they're behaving unethically or immorally. Indeed, these liberals are bullies.

Is it always wrong for a man to hit a woman?

1. In general, I take it that it goes without saying a guy's role is to protect the women in their care (e.g. mothers, sisters, wives, daughters).

I suppose this can in some situations extend to other women not directly under a man's care. For example, a man could intervene if he sees a woman getting attacked by another man.

Or, maybe, although care should be taken here, if he knows his neighbor is a wife-beater.

2. However, what if another woman is attacking a man's wife or mother or sister or daughter?

It may depend on the way she's attacking his loved one. Like can he step in and hold the other woman back solely by his strength? If so, then this may be the most viable course of action.

But what if the other woman is attacking his loved one such that he can't hold her back by non-violent means? It seems to me the man would be justified in hitting this other woman to protect his wife or mother or sister or daughter.

3. Some say a man shouldn't ever hit a woman because women are physically weaker than men. That's true in general.

But it's possible some women are stronger than some men. What if a female MMA fighter or wrestler or the like is pounding on a scrawny or skinny guy? Can he hit her back in self-defense?

4. Also, what if a woman is wielding a weapon like a knife against a guy who doesn't have any weapon? What if she's waving the weapon near his face and it looks like she'll cut him? Is he still not allowed to hit her?

5. It's usually significantly frowned upon if a guy is sucker punched, or if he's kicked in-between the legs. For whatever reason, these are usually off-limits, even, it seems, in street fights.

What if a woman sucker punches a guy, or kicks him in-between the legs? Can a guy hit her in retaliation? Or should he simply take it in, and eat her sucker punch or kick in the groin "like a man"?

6. What if a man is up against more than one woman on his own, say, for instance, a gang of women who clearly intend to assault him or rape him? Can he defend himself?

7. What if he faces a group of armed female looters attempting to rob his store like many Korean-Americans faced in Los Angeles in the Rodney King riots?

8. Short of hitting a woman, can a man push or slap a woman if, say, she repeatedly and publicly berates him, insults him, disrespects him, even attempts to instigate other men to attack him such as lying about him and saying he tried to steal her purse or rape her, and the like, even though he's never wronged her? (Of course, if other men are foolish enough to jump in at her instigation, then it may not be realistic for one man to go up against a group of men.)

Medicine and the Meaning of Healing

(Jean Bethke Elshtain)

Cloud of war

Some people argue Iran should be able to have nuclear weapons. After all, we have nuclear weapons. Likewise other nations like Russia, China, the UK, France, and Israel. So it's only fair Iran is allowed nuclear weapons.

However, I think this is a bit simplistic:

1. Iran has a different moral and ethical code than we do. They don't act like Western democratic nations act. Right now I'm not saying they have a superior or inferior moral or ethical code than we do, per se. I'm just pointing out the difference.
   
   When we say it's only fair to allow Iran to have nukes because we and others have nukes, we're granting Iran the right based on our morals or ethics. But since Iran doesn't share our moral or ethical sensibilities, it's not necessarily the case that they would do the same for us given their morals or ethics.
   
   So there's not necessarily the same moral or ethical parity we might expect there to be.
   
   In fact, common sense would seem to suggest it's highly unlikely if our roles were reversed - that is, if Iran were in our position as a superpower with nuclear weapons and we were a politically, socially, economically, and militarily weaker nation - that they would allow us to possess nuclear weapons. Why treat them in a way they almost certainly wouldn't treat us?
   
   
2. Maybe we can compare the argument over allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons to the argument that since some people have a gun everyone should be allowed to have a gun too.
   
   a. But we don't necessarily allow everyone to own a gun. Some people are known criminals with a long history of crime. Say thieves and murderers.
   
   Some people are mentally, emotionally, or psychologically unstable.
   
   Some people are morally irresponsible.
   
   And so forth.
   
   b. What's more, even among gun owners, we also make other distinctions and restrictions.
   
   For example, we require permits and licenses. We differentiate between different firearms such as guns and rifles. We don't allow everyone to own military grade guns. Concealed weapons.
   
   And on and on.
   
   c. The point is not that I'm against gun ownership. Rather the point is that it's necessary to draw distinctions even if we can agree upon a certain principle or principles. Let alone if we can't agree upon any principles.
   
   
3. Generally speaking, a nation has the authority to restrain and/or punish its citizens if the citizen commits an immoral or at least illegal act (e.g. fines, imprisonment, death penalty). But who has the authority to restrain and/or punish a nation which commits an immoral act?
   
   Another nation? An alliance of nations? The United Nations?
   
   Sure, we can make alliances with other nations such as the Allies did against the Nazis and fascists in the Second World War.
   
   All things equal, it'd most likely be easier for other nations to restrain an immorally acting nation which doesn't have nuclear weapons than an immorally acting nation which does have nuclear weapons. A nation with nuclear weapons is much harder to restrain.
   
   A nuclear weapon is like a trump card. Nothing beats a nuclear weapon.
   
   
4. Generally speaking it's easier to negotiate with nations which share significant and relevant enough commonalities such as the value for life. What do we do about nations which don't value life as Western democratic nations have historically valued life? Say suicidal nations that don't care about killing others even at the cost of their own extinction? At least the Russians subscribed to the notion of mutually assured destruction.
   
   
5. Similarly, what about rogue groups like terrorist organizations which we can't directly retaliate against?
   
   
6. Much depends on a nation's moral or ethical compass including its intentions. What's Iran's? Is it self-defense?
   
   And why trust duplicitous nations?
   
   
7. In fact, Iran will use nuclear weapons to gain leverage on the international scene. They intend to use nuclear weapons to keep us from interfering as much with their other non-nuclear activities such as sponsoring terrorism against Western democratic nations.