Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation?
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.
If someone was putting me or mine in danger sure. I’m thinking of a yelling fire in a crowded theatre kind of scenario.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
“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.
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?