brickbacon, I think that you’re guy I’ve been looking for … :dubious:
That’s a subtle distinction: What is unacceptable is not necessarily unacceptable.
There can also be honor in a duel to the death, in slaughtering infidels, in burning witches in God’s name.
In your non-barbaric, self-assured manly opinion, right?
It seems that you’re saying that sane people will (necessarily?) react with physical violence to things like “like racial or ethnic slurs, violent/hate speech, threats, etc.”
I guess walking away is not an option if you don’t to have the strength and self-assurance to realize that idiots often say idiotic things.
But what exactly does “taking it to the street” prove?
It doesn’t resolve the cause of the disagreement. It just shows who has the hardest punch.
It may not even save the honour of those called “sissy”. They could just end up getting a beating into the bargain.
And it certainly doesn’t prove who’s right.
So I’m not seeing where the honour and dignity is coming from. Sure, knowing you can whip anyone else in the room if you wished must be a powerful feeling, and having the personal confidence to bring physical challenges into disagreements must be nice. But I certainly wouldn’t regard such a person as having honour or dignity. I’m more likely to think them an unstable nutter worth avoiding.
Any time I’ve ended up in an argument that’s taken a physical turn I don’t think anyone’s come away from the episode with any credit, me included. And that’s no matter who comes out top, everyone loses one way or another.
Well here is exactly why this topic makes me a less happy person. I use to adhere to the school of thought that: you punched first - its your fault, you get beaten up after punching first - your problem, you punched first, you get sued for all that you owe or even arrested - your problem, you punched first.
The example you provided created a loophole in that logic. Some guy murders someone I love and rubs it in my face - I believe I have the right to do violence to that person. But the problem is - if any kind of speech can get you a beating, then every kind of speech can do so. What I think as acceptable speech(like for example burning a copy of some holy book, to me its just a book, I am an atheist), is reason enough to kill me for like 20% of the world population. And if we all get to make our own standards then it will just end up like in the bad old tribal days - might makes right. The stronger person will always invent some reason why beating the weaker is justified, just listen to rap for any number of good examples.
Ask anyone whose been in combat what the first thing that runs through their mind is. Not their country, not their honor. They wish it had never started.
Self defense against a physical attack is one thing, getting violent over something somebody said is childish. A stronger man or woman will consider the source of a verbal attack and give it no weight.
My apologies if I broke this up incorrectly. First, societal norms change over time. What is unacceptable now may or may not be acceptable in the future. These norms don’t always shed light on what is morally or ethically correct. Societies throughout time have had different levels of acceptance for things like homosexuality, pedophilia, etc (Not to imply that they are related). Whether or not the behavior is acceptable isn’t necessarily determined by what one society at one point in time decides.
I see no honor in burning a “witch” to death.
No, many will not react with physical violence. The question asked was what types of speech may result in someone reacting physically. All I’m saying is that those are the types of speech that seem to arose such behavior.
Sure it’s an option, but it doesn’t mean it’s the best or most effective option. Some people will go though life pissing people off and making things difficult for others. Many of those people would think twice about their future behavior if they were physically beaten as a result of acting like a dick. When you encounter one of those people, walking away will not be the solution of greatest utility to society as a whole.
Not sure if you’re joking here. Are you saying that there *is * honor in a duel to the death and in slaughtering infidels?
Okay. So, first, we have to determine what it means to “act like a dick” and then we can specify what type of physical beating is appropriate. Is that right? Any suggestions?
Also, if the intention is to find a solution that provides the greatest utility to society as a whole, does that solution necessarily involve physical violence? IOW, could there be a non-violent way of reducing the number of people in our society who “act like a dick”? Would it be society’s best interest to explore that option?
That there is a very real consequence for acting like a scumbag to the wrong person.
The many causes of disagreement may never be resolved. If guy walks up to a gay man and starts calling him a fag and taunting him, do you think agreement or resolution are possible? The cause is clearly homophobia, will that be resolved anytime soon? An opinion that was not logically embraced cannot be changed with logic. We’re past the point of conversation and polite engagement when you you approach someone in that way.
Perhaps. That’s why you shouldn’t enter a fight you can’t win.
And debate and/or verbal exchanges do?
I think you are confusing people who stick up for themselves with bullies and thugs. There may be overlap, but they are different concepts.
Perhaps that is because you lost your temper and reacted in haste and without mental clarity or coherence. The kinds of people, who I respect, that get into fights do so as a calculated, and thoughtful response to aggressive and antisocial behavior. Their motives are pure, and their actions are deliberate. They don’t use weapons, they don’t sucker punch people, and they don’t fight people that don’t want to fight. You may not agree with their behavior, but they are not the reckless thugs you seem to think they are. Perhaps I didn’t do a good job explaining this.
Go back to the post about when someone might expect someone to respond to a comment with physical violence. Basically, using hate speech, insults, and threatening language qualifies as acting like a dick.
No it doesn’t necessarily have to include violence, but violence seems to work well in many circumstances (other times, it does not). There isn’t gonna be a panacea. Knowing that, I don’t see why taking one option off the table is logical.
What if someone doesn’t want to fight, but also refuses to take back their insult? To me, that seems to be an impasse.
I can’t say I have a huge problem with people who agree to fight each other in order to resolve something. I don’t see how it would actually resolve anything (unless they were arguing about who is the better fighter), but whatever. So long as I keep the option of staying out of the fight, that’s fine.* I reserve the right to maintain insulting opinions about people, though, even if they’re bigger than I am, and I respect the right of others to insult me, even if they’re smaller. Physical prowess seems to be a bit of a red herring for the most part.
As for the OP - I don’t seriously threaten people with violence, even though I might joke about it from time to time.
~ Isaac
*I mean the option in terms of ‘no thanks’, not in terms of ‘please don’t hurt me, I concede the correctness of all that you say’.
All that proves is whether you’ve been dealing with “the wrong person”. It doesn’t prove you’ve been a scumbag, or not. I would think that the latter is of great deal more interest than the former.
No. Why do you think a fight is in any way a resolution either? Some things don’t have a resolution.
So fights are only honourable and dignified if you enter into them knowing you’re going to win? :dubious: Too weedy to be sure you can win? Sorry, you don’t get to be honourable.
Perhaps not. We all know that the most verbaly dexterous can win an argument and still be wrong. But at least they’re addressing the cause of the disagreement (it’s to be hoped). Fights are just a displacement activity.
Hang on, look at what you said above. You seem to be saying that you only get to be the kind of person who sticks up for themselves if you are sure you can win the fight. You can resolve disagreements by fighting, if you know you can win. If you don’t know you can win, well you have to back down even if you’re right. The guy who knows he can win a physical fight, wins the disagreement!
All sounds very similar to being a bully to me.
Well I would have less regarded for those kind of people, even less than someone who lost their temper. Sometimes people lose their temper and do things they regret. People are human. But someone who is “calculated and thoughtful” about it has no excuse. They’re using violence in preference to reason.
Nothing will “prove” who’s right or who was being a scumbag. It’s an subjective judgment based on one’s behavior. If someone who acts like that is met with a beating, s/he will think twice about acting that way in the future.
I never said the root cause would be resolved. That was my point.
When did I say that? I said one shouldn’t enter into a fight thinking s/he is going to lose. That is common sense.
No, they are not addressing the cause of the disagreement in situation where initiating a fight would be appropriate. That is the point.
No, you are confusing two different points I’ve made. You can stick up for yourself in many ways, including though physical combat. However, if you are going to suggest physical combat, it would be stupid to do so when you think you will lose. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that disagreements have a winner and loser. Most don’t.
I disagree.
Irrational people are immune to reason in many circumstances. However, they are not immune to pain. Always using violence isn’t what the people I’m talking about do. They use it judiciously when the circumstances deem it appropriate. If you are saying that it’s never appropriate, then we will have to agree to disagree.
It’s as if you beat up someone for altruistic reasons. Have you appointed yourself to be society’s guardian?
Also, what do you think the person will “think twice about doing”? After the beating, are you going to articulate the specific reasons for the beating? Won’t the most likely result be that the person will avoid you?
What you really want is to avoid being offended by what the person says, but you put the responsibility for how you feel onto the other person.
If a 5-year old boy called you a dickhead, would you beat him up to provide “the greatest utility to society”?
Do you threaten people with physical violence?
No. I’m a 5’5" female, I haven’t been socialised to do this, and I’ve always believed that the pen (or the spoken word) is mightier than the sword when you have a problematic person to deal with.
It would be patently stupid for me to threaten some random 6’4" dude with physical violence, for whatever reason. I might have felt the urge to hit another medium-sized girl, but I’ve never done it. And I don’t believe in hitting children.
However, reading Martin Hyde’s posts, to be honest, if someone was threatening to, or had actually enacted, physical or severe psychological harm to someone I love, I may not threaten them with physical violence, but I might well carry out a bit of the old 9th Symphony. I’m a laid-back person ordinarily, but if you intend to fuck with people who are dear to me, I intend to fuck with you.
If someone is really pissing me off I don’t have a problem making aggressive gestures or getting in their face. It isn’t a direct threat or anything but it is an attempt to use my physical presence to be overbearing.
Threats are somewhat tactically stupid. They broadcast intentions. Personal violence is best swift and unannounced and brutal. All three major fights I got in high school were because I got picked on and clowned by some raging ass until somebody said something they shouldn’t have said and I lost it. By “it” I mean “the willingness to restrain myself from attacking his eyes.” The first punch thrown in a fight never matters as much as who threw the last.
On another note it’s silly to say that “it’s just words so what’s the big deal?” As many of the Dopers have attested on the bullying threads words can be quite harmful. We’re social animals and words can be use to build good will but they can also be used to tear someone apart. Most of us are rational people though. If you call me an asshole on the street there’s not a very good chance of me taking a swing at you. Should someone walk up to my wife on the street, say an ex-employee, and become verbally abusive I’d warn them to stop. If that didn’t work then there’s a decent chance I’d attept to knock his teeth out.
I guess if your intent is to cause bodily harm, then unannounced violence is more effective.
But if someone is doing something that is really bothering you, isn’t the intent to stop the person from doing it?
And actually, isn’t the desired outcome to stop being bothered by it?
Also (and I don’t think that this point has been raised in this thread) isn’t assault a crime? Or does the law not apply when you’re really pissed off?
Count me in as one more who believes that the only proper response, in some situations, is to deliver an assbeating upon a deserving individual. I won’t say that it benefits society as a whole; but, it certainly does benefit me when, through that assbeating, the recipient learns to refrain from the behaviors that caused it.
But look at what you’re saying: “it certainly does benefit me when … the recipient learns to refrain from the behaviors that caused it.”
How does the recipient’s learning something benefit you? Do you spend most of your time with that person? Are you forced to be subjected to the behavior?
And what do you think the recipient will actually learn?
Scumpup, the only way that that delivering an assbeating benefits you is that it allows you to release your frustration in, what appears to be, the only way that you are capable of.
And, BTW, if you really want to benefit from the elimination of a particular behavior, just shoot the bastard. A few times, to make sure he’s dead.
Here is a real life example from my personal experience:
X, who was a fellow college student, thought that it was acceptable behavior to publicly mock me. I was from a small town and X was from the city, one of his favorite themes was that I was a hick as compared to his hip, urban sophistication. Several times, I asked him to stop. No results. I demanded he stop. No results. I beat him like a rented mule. He stopped.
Did he mock other people? Yes. Did my giving him an assbeating stop that? No. X did learn, however, not to mock me. Clearly, I benefitted.
I’m a laid-back person ordinarily, but if you intend to fuck with people who are dear to me, I intend to fuck with you.