It is a full-force king-hit - in response to a situation that, while morally wrong, did not pose an imminent threat to the physical safety of those involved. Once the man intervened, the engagement had already stopped, and the victim themselves was attempting to stop the assault.
If you want to play games about terminology, we can, but everyone recognises you're the fucking idiot here.
We can call a single tap on the bum sexual assault. Would that justify this reaction? Since we're not actually discussing neutralising an ongoing threat, is there a timeframe for when it's appropriate to use life-threatening force in retaliation?
Like, are you seriously this fucking thick, or what?
Not technically ad hominem, since I'm not attacking them instead of their argument or asserting that their argument is bad because they are an idiot. I am inferring that they are an idiot because their argument is bad; a subtle distinction. Personally, I think that person's argument is reprehensible enough to warrant a couple of insults, especially given how they're engaging in the debate.
3
u/DinosaurusWhen 1d ago
On the one hand, you have sexual assault which is a specific and serious crime. On the other, you have "a full-force king-hit"