What about Buzz Aldrin? This is an extraordinary man who possesses the high intelligence necessary to get his doctorate in astronautics and the self-control to remain cool in the face of stress and danger as both a fighter pilot and an astronaut. And yet after being taunted for about a minute and a half and called a liar, a thief and a coward Buzz slugged the guy.
I believe the law should be enforced as well. But if I were the prosecutor and I saw that this guy had no prior history of violence and his “victim” was egging him on I’m likely to plea bargain him down to some misdemeanor charge.
I’m reluctant to draw conclusions based on a single anecdote. I see from wikipedia that in the case of Buzz Aldrin, we not merely talking about a minute and a half of nuisance, but rather a more elaborate trick by the perp: On September 9, 2002, Aldrin was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel on the pretext of being interviewed for a Japanese children’s television show. When he arrived, Apollo Conspiracy proponent Bart Sibrel accosted him with a film crew and demanded he swear on a Bible that the Moon landings were not faked. After a brief confrontation Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw. The police determined that Aldrin was provoked and no charges were filed. Buzz Aldrin - Wikipedia
BBC: Mr Aldrin responded by punching Mr Sibrel, but said he merely struck out to defend himself and his stepdaughter, who was with him at the time.
Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched.
…Mr Sibrel sustained no visible injury and did not seek medical attention… Poking with an object is considered assault in some jurisdictions AFAIK, though I doubt whether it is battery.
No; you’re mixing up morality with how we mortals have to accept the universe works.
Let’s say someone’s just a born idiot and they spend their whole life doing dumb things. You’re saying the right punishment for their “crime” of being an idiot includes (but is not limited to) some of the worst pain a human can experience, disfiguration and/or death?
Well, yes. The price of stupidity is and always has been death. Either the stupid person learns or they die. (At this time in history, we have many more opportunities to learn from the deaths of earlier stupid people.)
Gilligan should have been fed to the sharks for what he put the rest of the castaways through.
That’s because of the law. If the law didn’t exist, what would the normal reaction be?
What if the law instead read that after “sufficient” taunting the victim was allowed to defend himself in a manner to stop the harrassment similar to physical threats. That means that if I ask you to stop and you don’t, I move away from you and you follow and clearly the taunts are ongoing to get a physical reaction such as an increased heart rate and breathing and stress, I’m allowed to deck you to get you to stop.
I wasn’t talking about ‘punishment’. I was talking about predictable effects of your actions. No ‘morality’ involved. The OP didn’t specify anything about ‘punishment’.
You should be reluctant to draw conclusions based on a single anecdote. However you said that no “normal” person responds to taunts with violence. Well here’s one case where someone who I think we can all agree is an extraordinary person did respond to taunting with violence. Was it an unusual situation? Yeah. But then for most of us I think being taunted is an unusual experience.
What you said was “Any time you do something stupid, with an easily predictable result, yes, you deserve that result” [emphasis added].
Deserve is an “ought to happen” word. If I say that someone “got what they deserved” it implies I think it is right and proper what happened to them, and I would not change things even if I could. It is making a moral statement.
Now, I will say here, this is one of those situations where you didn’t have many choices of word to use, but you may want to have another run at it if you didn’t mean this implication.
Then we have a different understanding of the word ‘deserve’, and there’s no point in continuing. I said what I meant, and it had nothing to do with what ‘ought to happen’, but rather, merely that the person getting an easily predictable result has some share in the responsibility for that result occurring.
I do. I pointed out that even someone with remarkable self-control can be taunted to the point of violence. If an extraordinary person can be taunted to violence it would indicate to me that even a “normal” person could find him or herself in a similar situation to Buzz.
Your new idea of “deserve” doesn’t match the dictionary definition. It’s not about responsibility, necessarily, nor what is easily predictable.
If I said “He’s been so kind to so many people, he deserves to win the lottery” most people would accept that that sentence at least makes sense.
But the new statement you are making of course I have no issue with.
Oh, very different. Murder rates are very high in societies that lack the rule of law.
Providing additional scope for the exercise of violence doesn’t seem like a good reason to change the law. Like I said, harassment is itself illegal.
Er, I made a generalization, not a categorical statement. There’s a real difference between “Normal people don’t do X” and “Normal people never do X”.
Aldrin claims he was defending his daughter. I maintain that the situation had a lot more going than “Taunting” – he was also being jerked around by being invited to a hotel for a sham children’s TV show. But again, without a detailed description of what exactly happened, I lack sufficient information to evaluate the quality of Aldrin’s judgment at that point in time. I don’t automatically assume that he did the right thing, regardless of how satisfying it is to imagine an Apollo conspiracy proponent getting clocked in the jaw (without serious injury- the man was not hospitalized).