cliveandrews Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation? I certainly enjoyed watching Buzz Aldrin deck that "moon landing hoax" loony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 If someone was putting me or mine in danger sure. I'm thinking of a yelling fire in a crowded theatre kind of scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation?By "justify", surely you must mean "render morally good". What is your concept of "abuse"? Is a threat against a person's life a case of abuse? Is fraud a kind of "abuse"? Leaving aside verbal acts which are violations of rights (punishable with physical retaliation by the state), no non-physical "abuse" can morally be answered with force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) I certainly enjoyed watching Buzz Aldrin deck that "moon landing hoax" loony. Yes, so did I. He was aggressive, and in his face, so Buzz reacted: at first, he asked that he get away from him, because his personal space was being invaded. Then he reacted, in self defense. I would react the same way, I see nothing wrong with that. But of course, I'm in my twenties, and have basic martial arts training, so that coward would think twice before yelling in my face and refusing to move. That's not the same as attacking someone for nothing but words, without the physical threat. That can never be justified. Edited October 29, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation? Learn to swear better. Problem solved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinD Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm in my twenties, and have basic martial arts training, so that coward would think twice before yelling in my face and refusing to move. You're assuming that he thought once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAllotrope Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 This probably is not what the OP is asking, but if a verbal statement gives cause to imagine an impending physical threat (ie mugger comes up and says "let me hold your wallet") then I'd say sure physical retaliation is justified. Just insults, not so much. Besides, in a civil society, people tend to notice the person throwing out the insults at least as much as the victim. Damaged reputation and refusal to trade can be powerful consequences by themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 By "justify", surely you must mean "render morally good". What is your concept of "abuse"? Is a threat against a person's life a case of abuse? Is fraud a kind of "abuse"? Leaving aside verbal acts which are violations of rights (punishable with physical retaliation by the state), no non-physical "abuse" can morally be answered with force. I agree with David. Abuse is one thing, exercising freedom of speech is another. Punish those who violate our rights and dismiss the ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation? Yes, but only after one fair warning. While no amount of verbal abuse actually violates your rights, it does affect your mood and emotions, as it is intended to do. If you warn the other person to "shut up or I'll kick the crap out of you," and he continues, well, he's earned it fair and square. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Yes, but only after one fair warning. While no amount of verbal abuse actually violates your rights, it does affect your mood and emotions, as it is intended to do. If you warn the other person to "shut up or I'll kick the crap out of you," and he continues, well, he's earned it fair and square. I disagree. Your emotional state is not an excuse for violence. If it were well then following through on your threat to kill some ass that continues to call you names after you warned him not to is ok too. I mean after all he deserved it... he was warned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 If you warn the other person to "shut up or I'll kick the crap out of you," and he continues, well, he's earned it fair and square.Uh, that is a flaming rejection of Objectivism. Since when do you have a right to another person's life? Since when do your wishes constitute a valid claim one another person's life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I disagree. Your emotional state is not an excuse for violence. If it were well then following through on your threat to kill some ass that continues to call you names after you warned him not to is ok too. I mean after all he deserved it... he was warned. Do we agree no one has a right to verbally abuse you, at least not without provocation? If so, then you have a right to make him stop. First you should ignore the abuser and move on, but it's not always possible or practical to do so. Next best thing is to involve some authority to make him stop. If that option is also not available or if it fails to work, then I say you give warning and let him proceed at his own risk. To spare you the next question, yes, I've done just that. Back at school, many years ago, when 1) leaving the classroom was not an option, 2) the teacher refused to do anything, and 3) the jerk ignored the warning. I got beaten up, too. I wasn't aprticularly strong nor skilled in hitting other kids effectively. But the mere willingness to fight stronger, bigger boys made them quit bugging me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 There is no right to silence. You do not have a right to hit someone who does not pose a threat of violence toward you. Me calling you names is not a threat of violence, however if I threatened to kill you or beat you up you are right to have every expectation that I would follow through and would (in my opinion if not in legal fact) have the right to move in your own defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Do we agree no one has a right to verbally abuse you, at least not without provocation? No, we don't. People have a right to say anything they wish, and address it to anyone they wish. It is irrelevant if you think that what they are saying is abusive. As for when you were in school, if it is true that other kids would not threaten you, only insult you, then you should've learned to defend yourself using wit, and insult them back, instead of threatening physical violence. It doesn't matter that you don't have the option to leave (a. because your parents want you in school and b. because in the end you probably preferred to be in school, because the positives outweigh the negatives), you still have no right to initiate violence against people who insult you. You should've been willing to fight only when someone chose to go there. Kids will be opinionated, and mean to each other, no matter what. The problem is some choose to protect themselves from insults with their fists. They are the cause of the violence in schools, and they deserve to be punished, not the ones who "provoked" the fight with words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 No, we don't. People have a right to say anything they wish, and address it to anyone they wish. It is irrelevant if you think that what they are saying is abusive. As for when you were in school, if it is true that other kids would not threaten you, only insult you, then you should've learned to defend yourself using wit, and insult them back, instead of threatening physical violence. It doesn't matter that you don't have the option to leave (a. because your parents want you in school and b. because in the end you probably preferred to be in school, because the positives outweigh the negatives), you still have no right to initiate violence against people who insult you. You should've been willing to fight only when someone chose to go there. Kids will be opinionated, and mean to each other, no matter what. The problem is some choose to protect themselves from insults with their fists. They are the cause of the violence in schools, and they deserve to be punished, not the ones who "provoked" the fight with words. I agree with most of this. However, I don't think children should have the same free speech rights in schools that we all do in public. Therefore I think it is sometimes appropriate to punish both kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 The key question is whether the hitting constitutes force. If it doesn't cause any injury to the person, and he has been "asking for it" with his behavior, then the case can be made that he had implicitly consented to being hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 The key question is whether the hitting constitutes force. If it doesn't cause any injury to the person, and he has been "asking for it" with his behavior, then the case can be made that he had implicitly consented to being hit. What does the extent of the injury have to do with it? "asking for it"??? implicitly consented??? really??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 "asking for it"??? implicitly consented??? really??? Asking for it is exactly right. If your words or actions are designed to make someone angry, then you should expect negative consequences from that anger towards you. It's just like people who drive too fast when it's raining or snowing, or who eliberately run red lights when they're in a rush. They're asking to have a traffic accident, even if that's not what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's just like people who drive too fast when it's raining or snowing, or who eliberately run red lights when they're in a rush. They're asking to have a traffic accident, even if that's not what they want. A road can't walk away from a speeding driver. Are you seriously suggesting that a man who is taunted is just as optionless as a piece of asphalt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 A road can't walk away from a speeding driver. Are you seriously suggesting that a man who is taunted is just as optionless as a piece of asphalt? I'm saying is the same evasion of reality that takes place (damage to the road in traffic accidents is usually minnimal anyway). You may drive 75 through a snowstorm. You may expect nothing bad can possibly happen. You can expect a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, too. But you won't find a pot of gold and you're very likely to wind up dead driving like that. If someone you're taunting gets msd and hits you, would you complain "but I was only trying to make him furious!" Oh, some kids who bugged me expected me to hit them in order to get me in trouble. I suppose you'll say they weren't asking for it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 No, we don't. People have a right to say anything they wish, and address it to anyone they wish. Careful. You seem to be almost suggesting that the speaker has a right to be heard by anyone they wish, which would conflict with the would-be hearer's right not to have to listen to whatever it is the speaker wants to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 There is certainly a situation in which you should use pre-emptive force. Those people that walk right into your face, with their nose right next to yours, have invaded your space so greatly and are showing that they are such an extreme risk to you, you need to defend yourself from them. If you just let them hit you first, there is really no possibility that you could defend that swing. Good boxers keep people on the outside, they know that it's really hard to defend a punch if someone closes the space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eficazpensador Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Asking for it is exactly right. If your words or actions are designed to make someone angry, then you should expect negative consequences from that anger towards you. Do you understand what principles you're advocating? If you say something that makes someone angry, you ought to expect physical force in retaliation to your words. Are you an Objectivist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Do you understand what principles you're advocating? Yes, the same principle contained in the statement "if you play with fire you'll get burned." If you say something that makes someone angry, you ought to expect physical force in retaliation to your words. Are you an Objectivist? Look, even if I were to grant that it's always immoral to react violently to any kind of non-physical provocation, lots of poeple are immoral. If you try to make someone angry chances are you'll wind up hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.