Posted on 01/27/2002 8:48:53 AM PST by moodyskeptic
I'm sorry, but someone has to voice it: the little guy had it coming. Sucker punching a man 110 pounds your better is unwise, and the little antagonist Micheal Costin was in the wrong in the heated exchange that claimed his life.
At first, I was going along with the dominant media, insisting that this Sports Rage is out of hand and that the killer was a bully who should get the electric chair. But, being a Freeper, I have learned to check my emotional response to "big stories" and get more information before I choose sides. I wanted to hate the Big Bully Thomas Junta, he was reportedly a huge man. Then I realized that he's about my size, I'm 6'1", 255. I'm no giant. And I've spent an adulthood targeted by stupid little hot headed roosters who like to pick fights they can't win. Any big guy will tell you: you learn to be the cooler head and attempt to walk away. Expect no sympathy in ANY altercation.Little guys with an agenda are everywhere, perhaps they were traumatized, they didn't get chosen for teams or were ignored by daddy, whatever.Genetics made us big, not weightlifting. We are what our ancestors were, fat or big or strong or smart or devious or small or kind or mean. There are few truly mean big guys.
It turns out that the little guy Costin was allowing high sticking and rough contact during stick practice, and when the Big Dumb Guy showed up to protest, Costen shot back that hockey is a tough game, get over it. Costin was in the wrong. He should've relented and shut up. But he was the hot head of the two and wouldn't drop it. In the dressing room, he sucker punched the bigger man and kicked at him with his skates as they continued arguing. This chicken spit tactic should've gotten him clobbered right then.True to Big Guy form, Junta went out to his truck to simmer down, only to return when he realized that his son was still in a locker room with a crazy father and his roughneck kids. Let's honestly add to that the humiliation of being sucker punched and walking away from it.
I don't know how many of you freepers have been in an inadvertant serious fight with guys who play dirty. Apparently very few. Surely the pixie woman prosecutor was in unfamiliar waters, judging by her questions. " So, this meant you had to resort to violence, Mr. Junta?" Huh? She ever experienced anything beyond her suburan car pool existance?
Wise fathers tell their boys: don't smart off to cops, don't hit women, don't pick fights you can't possibly win. Attacking a man 110 pounds bigger than you, when you are IN THE WRONG morally, is unwise. While I'm very sad that Costin died. Really. However, putting the Big Dumb father in jail for six to ten years send the message: Open Season on big guys, a jury packed with people who got overlooked when choosing sides for dodgeball will exact revenge on the Big Bully, and you can be as mean and smart alecky as you want at that next sporting event.
I don't even know WHERE to start with this opus, which you've obviously been planning for a few days now.
I am mystified how you divined that I had been planning my "opus" for a few days. I know you Texans are Titans, towering over we lilliputans, but I had not known that omniscience was also a Texan trait. Up here in wimpy New York, we would call a statement like yours an "assumption," and we try to avoid them because they are often based on mental processes which have nothing to do with fact.
And probably more to the point is the fact, of which I have personal knowledge, that I responded to your post immediately upon first reading it, having been struck by the magnificent irony of a person who made the particular argument you did, running away from the fight because you had been "insulted." And my response only took a couple minutes, it was so easy.
Am I wrong in seeing irony when a person argues that any person who starts a fight must suffer even death for having started the fight, but the person who makes that argument runs away from the argument because she was merely "insulted?"
I mentioned my weight (and my height, on which I notice you didn't comment) to make the point that I was coming from the big-man perspective.
Uh, you really have to use very, very small words to explain this statement to me. What you said was: "I speak from experience. I'm five-ten and weigh between 130 and 150 (yep, it do vary that much), which makes me at least equal size to most men of my aquaintance." Then you go on to explain how you tried to physically fight with boyfriends who acted (in my estimation) like real men and refused to fight back.
Putting aside the puzzling relevance of your weight variance, is the relevance of your weight at all. There are several connections with reality here which seem to be overlooked.
First, what difference does the purported "big man perspective" have to do with your argument whatsoever? If your argument is a good one, would it really matter how big or small you are? Or are you saying that your purported bigness gives you a special insight into fights between big people and smaller people? I thought your point was universally applicable ... if anyone of any size starts a fight, he should justifiably suffer death if death is the consequence. Can you use tiny words to explain what I dont see?
Second ... do you really think 5-10 and 150 pounds entitles you to a big man's perspective?
Third ... were you actually suggesting (it seemed that you were) that your "chivalrous" boyfriends were entitled to kill you? That was the logic of your post. Except, now I am really confused. If the point of mentioning your weight was to present the "big man's" perspective, than why would you also be implying that your boyfriends were entitled to kill you because you started the fight, when your point was that a "big man" was entitled to kill a small man who started a fight?
You don't think it insults a woman to tell her she looks heavier than she is? Are you still single, by any chance?
See, up here in wimpy New York, the question of whether I am "still single" would be considered logically irrelevant to the discussion. Up here, we call it "changing the subject." I am sure in Texas there is a mega-logic which connects my marital status with the proposition that anyone who starts a fight should justifiably accept death, if that is the consequence.
And whether or not it insults a woman to be told she looks like she weighs more than she says, or (to give another example) that she looks older than she says, it all depends on the woman, and it all depends on the spirit in which the observation is made. Gosh, Ms Lyte, please use minuscule words to explain to me that life is less complicated or subtle than it seems.
One does not comment unfavorably on a lady's weight. Also, if you actually knew a woman, you'd know that we don't like to be reminded of our upper-end scales.
When the lady is commenting on the ethics of killing a man in a fight, the upper-end of her scale does not seem like a particularly significant matter of politesse, when she herself mentions her weight as part of her argument (as you yourself admit ... remember ... the "big man perspective"?).
Ever heard of argumentum ad hominem? Go look it up.
Oh dear, precious, lovely woman ... have you ever heard of teasing? Dont look it up. I will give you a definition. It is the affectionate ridicule of a person who takes herself too seriously. But in New York, we call that subtlety ... does that exist in Texas?
And I stand by my original contention, which is don't start something you can't finish. Costin didn't think. He jumped a big guy while he was still wearing hockey gear. Ever get kicked by someone wearing skates? I'd rather not, myself.
And your contention is one of those absurdities which shows up from time to time on FR. It is a Taliban contention. It exalts trivial things. It is an expression of weakness, not strength. Turning away is the strong act. And even stupid jackasses dont deserve death, unless they have justifiably invited deadly force.
It's not "cowardly" to stop arguing when someone attacks you personally. It's a sign of recognition that I'm not gonna get you to change your mind, since you've left the issue and resorted to name-calling.
What you say here has some merit. But when you read all of what was said between us, is this really a fair characterization, or are you overly focussed on your weight?
Did that clear things up, honey? If not, write back and I'll try to use smaller words.
HEY! I wrote back! What small words do you have to offer from the big man's perspective?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.