Pericles, the answer "no" to a question that asks for grounds means you are implying that the grounds are contained within the response. Therefore, it is begging the question. do try to keep up, old fellow.

you then went on to do it yet again when pressed:"On the grounds that no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity." which is not actual grounds, it's a statement of belief.

Moreover, it's a statement of belief that is not at all absolute, since you have already offered an apologetic for women's violence based on precisely the same premises, but with the gender of the assailant altered. Not to put too fine a point on it, you've painted yourself into a rather tight and quite unpleasantly appointed corner.

The only possible concluson from all you'e posted here is that you think women are emotionally unstable and lack the capacity for self control, but that's OK because they're also physically incompetent, which I'm afraid says a great deal more about you than you might like to consider.

Whiteknightitis.

Impressive piece of casuistry, Antiseptic. Sits well with your faulty understanding of logic.

>>Pericles, the answer "no" to a question that asks for grounds means you are implying that the grounds are contained within the response. Therefore, it is begging the question. do try to keep up, old fellow.<<

Try this one: have you stopped beating your wife? On what grounds?

I'm not sure why you are spending so much time pretending that you are right. Although it does explain your inflexibility on the topic under discussion.

>>you then went on to do it yet again when pressed:"On the grounds that no-one should have the right to use violence with impunity." which is not actual grounds, it's a statement of belief.<<

Absolutely. It is an opinion. One that I hold, and requires no "grounds", other than it is an opinion that I hold. I am not asserting any of this as "fact", since we are all just delivering opinions. You just happen to mistake your own opinion for absolute fact, that's all.

>>...since you have already offered an apologetic for women's violence based on precisely the same premises, but with the gender of the assailant altered.<<

Not at all. The cases differ, precisely because I differentiate between male-on-male violence, and a slap delivered by a female at a party, where no-one was injured.

>>The only possible concluson from all you'e posted here is that you think women are emotionally unstable and lack the capacity for self control<<

No. But that sound eerily like your own opinion.

Or do I mean your assertion of fact.

Pericles:"Try this one: have you stopped beating your wife? On what grounds?"

Not at all equivalent logical cases. Mine was a simple case of inverting the gender of the assailant: yours presupposes a pre-existing condition. It's just more begging of the question.

Still, it's nice to have discovered the limits of one's interlocutors capacity to reason logically.

I note that the rest of your response has an eerie resonance with the schoolyard retort "I know you are but what am I?".It was a poor excuse for a conclusive argument then and thus it remains.

Pericles, a further question if I may. What do you do when your opinion is shown to be wanting?

Sure, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, a further question if I may. What do you do when your opinion is shown to be wanting?<<

You may be sure I will let you know when that happens.